Paul Trejo

perhaps you should refresh your history AND argument.. when it comes to potential events leading to WW3: The Cuban Missile Crises... (see below) Then again, if you were not born then what would you know, eh? http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx David, while it's true that we came very close to World War Three with the Cuban Missle Crisis, I still maintain that we came even closer with the assassination of JFK, given the revelation that the radical right-wing in the USA was responsible for the act. The occupation of Cuba by the USSR was indeed alarming -- but the USA was mostly united on that score. The assassination of a sitting President is even more alarming. If the facts had come out in 1964, I feel certain the USA would have not been united -- we would have been divided -- and therefore much closer to World War Three because (1) Americans would have attacked each other; and (2) the USSR would have perceived a weakness and made some sort of overt move inside USA borders. As for the time period in which I was born (or anybody was born) that is totally immaterial, because the power of historical method allows each of us to gaze upon the facts from the high-level perspective of reason. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Thank you Paul. Seems you -- and you alone-- have figured out Lee Oswald's motives. Thank you, Raymond -- that's exactly what I think. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

David, I agree with you entirely that the autopsy was falsified, and that from the very beginning everything was manipulated to hide the actual perpetrators of the JFK assassination. The second thoughts I have about J. Edgar Hoover are these: he was too certain about Oswald a little bit too soon for my comfort. The cover-up started immediately. Still, I will give Hoover the benefit of any doubt until the last possible moment. Now -- we connect the dots differently after that. This does not prove that there was a coup' d 'etat, or that LBJ was a pirate. It is just as possible -- given the same material evidence -- that all of America, including LBJ, was surprised at this assassination -- but LBJ had to respond immediately (and so did Hoover). That they responded so smoothly might be interpreted as complicity -- or as genuine and skillful statesmanship. Without final proof, I will side with the statesmanship argument. As for the Vietnam war, you have no proof that it was a departure from JFK's agenda, since he was very much of two minds over the issue. Also, the false life of Oswald was his own making - because of his willing compliance with the guidance of Guy Banister. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Oh pleez, Paul. . I think you're going way too far in this analysis. What about the 58,000 people whose names are engraved on the Vietnam memorial in Washington, D.C.? (And the 1 million Asians who died in that conflict?) Are we supposed to believe that somehow their deaths too, somehow are invested with some "meaning" because "they" too, functioned as a buffer of sorts, and prevented World War 3? Sorry, but I can't buy into that kind of analysis. At all.... DSL 6/18/13; 8:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California David -- the Cold War was won by the patriots who fought for it. On that we agree. However, the closest we came to World War Three was, I will argue, the moment when the truth of the JFK assassination had to be declared to the American People. That is a separate instance and stands alone in history. In that case, the LBJ administration, with the support of J. Edgar Hoover, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles, made the command decision to blame the entire JFK assassination on Lee Harvey Oswald -- knowing full well that this was not the truth. However, they also knew that the truth would have led to Civil War. It was already noted that reporters immediately suspected General Walker of complicity. In some parts of the USA citizens immediately went out with hatchets and began chopping down John Birch Society billboards. It had begun. If not for the brilliant act of blaming Lee Harvey Oswald for the JFK assassination, Civil War would have broken out -- the JBS and their Minutemen cadre were large, well-armed and powerful -- and had the Deep South as allies because of Earl Warren's Brown decision (Impeach Earl Warren!). The Civil War of the 1960's would have erupted largely along the same lines as the 19th century Civil War. Now, a Civil War in the middle of the Cold War would have tempted the USSR to become involved. Once that was perceived, charges of treason would have flown back and forth: Sleeping with the enemy! Coup'd'etat! TREASON! Then nuclear winter would have been on our doorstep. One can make the case that we owe it to J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Earl Warren, Allen Dulles -- but especially to Lee Harvey Oswald -- that we do not live in a nuclear winter today. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

No, Paul B., I'm not hi-jacking this thread. It's about the "future of the JFK Forum" in general, and about the dismissal of the moderator Tom Scully (as well as Jim Di Eugenio) in particular. Part of the reason for Tom's dismissal was that he harrassed my posts -- he didn't criticize them with facts or counter-arguments, but with insults and accusations. Tom Scully led a counter-culture of insults and accusations on this Forum in recent months, often in response to my opinions. That is self-evident from threads in 2013. Now, IMHO, the future of the JFK Forum will be characterized by the sort of exchange that I engage here with Raymond -- we disagree sharply, but neither of us stoops to name-calling, insults or accusations. Thus this thread is also partly a demonstration of the kind of decorum that John Simkin explicitly demands for his web site in this very thread. I'm quite aware that my opinions are controversial -- they challenge most other positions out there. I don't take an Either/Or approach (either Oswald was innocent or guilty with no middle term; or, either the Warren Commission was correct or was a coup'd'etat with no middle term). My position is a dialectical synthesis, and it's rare anywhere, not just on John Simkin's Education Forum on JFK. So, no, I'm not hi-jacking this thread -- I'm pushing it forward. And finally, I think my double-response to Raymond regarding Oswald's "motive" merits a response. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Sorry, Paul, that sounds like double-think to me. This antiquated and disproved theory is just a variation on the official story. Old wine in new bottles. The Warren Commission could not find a motive for Lee, and neither could Garrison. Have you had any better luck in finding a motive? Also, Raymond, although I've offered a primary motive for Oswald above, namely, that Oswald was motivated by efforts to do well in an undercover operation for Guy Banister, e.g. pretend to be an FPCC officer to fool the Cuban Embassy clerks in Mexico City to admit him into Cuba to meet Castro -- there is a secondary motive I'd like to clarify. The secondary motive for Oswald in his obsessive cooperation with Guy Banister was to atone for his crime of attempting to kill the resigned General Edwin Walker for his role in the Ole Miss racial riots in September 1962. This idea came to me years ago when reading Ron Lewis book, Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald (1993), and was confirmed for me by reading Harry Dean's, Crosstrails (2001), but especially driven home by the personal papers of resigned General Edwin Walker himself, which are partially laid out at my web site at www.pet880.com. These three sources tend to agree that the testimony we find in the Warren Commission reports about Lee Harvey Oswald spending significant time and effort to kill Edwin Walker is valid, believable testimony. Ron Lewis claims to have known Lee Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. So Ron knew Lee for only a few weeks, yet they established a rapport based on the fact that both had an undesirable discharge status from the Marines. Lee recruited Ron to report to Guy Banister (through Lee) about Long family political campaigns. Ron claims to have met Banister and Ferrie for a few minutes at a bar -- once. In any case, Ron also claims that during the course of that summer, when Lee Oswald was anxious about getting into Cuba, and considered hijacking a plane to get there, he confessed to Ron that Guy Banister was blackmailing him because he had tried to kill General Walker; and as it turned out they were close friends. Ron encouraged Lee to escape, but Lee was committed to redeem himself in the eyes of Guy Banister, i.e. he believed that by completing his "mission" that Guy Banister would release him from his paramilitary sentence. My point is that ex-General Edwin Walker plays a motivating role for Oswald during his New Orleans episode, according to Ron Lewis. As for Harry Dean, he claims that in early September 1963, he attended an exclusive meeting with top John Birch Society officials in Southern California at which ex-General Walker was the guest. Walker explained to those few present that a scheme was in progress to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of JFK. Present at that meeting were (among others) Loran Hall and Larry Howard (whom Harry is convinced were the Leopoldo and Angelo, or rather, Lorenzo and Alonzo, who in late September visited Sylvia Odio along with Lee Harvey Oswald on their way to Mexico City). But most vitally, the personal papers of ex-General Edwin Walker reveal that he was aware of Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination of JFK, even though he told the Warren Commission he wasn't. (In my humble opinion, Walker committed perjury more than any other witness before the Warren Commission.) Walker's phone call to the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung, citing Lee Harvey Oswald only 18 hours after the killing of JFK is only the start of the evidence. http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg Best regards, --Paul Trejo <add citation>

David, I think you're missing some nuances. The Warren Commission conclusions are indeed compromised because of the self-evident folly of the Lone Assassin theory. Nevertheless, it's a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There's gold inside the Warren Commission volumes. Admittedly such gold requires the hard work of mining, but there are witnesses and statements found there that are found noplace else. The HSCA attempted to interview some of the same folks -- with poor results. Marina Oswald Porter, for example, gave substantially no new information -- how could she? She told everything she knew the first time. George De Mohrenschildt, who kept so many secrets from the Warren Commission, chose instead to commit suicide rather than to face his oath again. (His substitute testimony, I'm A Patsy, I'm A Patsy!, was not an affidavit submitted under oath. If it were, George would have been guilty of perjury for claiming that he didn't remember Volkmar Schmidt's name, but thought he was 'Jewish' -- yet only weeks beforehand George had begged Volkmar Schmidt to let him move into the Schmidt home.) The final conclusion of the Warren Commission is defunct. Almost everybody on the Forum agrees with that. However, IMHO the testimony from Marina Oswald is the TRUTH, and so is the testimony from most other witnesses. Of the perjuries committed, they are few and far between, and consist mainly of lies of omission rather than lies of commission. The Warren Commission had its conclusion at the start, namely, the Lone Assassin theory articulated by J. Edgar Hoover on the evening of the JFK assassination itself. Therefore, the Warren Commission attorneys did not satisfactorily pursue contradictions in testimony. Much was omitted from the Warren Commission testimony -- but the HSCA did not recover those omissions. The key data from the HSCA, IMHO, was about the Mexico City episode, the Sylvia Odio episode starring Loran Hall, and the proximity of Gerry Patrick Hemming and Interpen to the Lake Pontchartrain paramilitary training camp directed by Guy Banister and David Ferrie. The Warren Commission failed us in many ways -- but there is much that it successfully pursued, and we should treasure much of that testimony for the cause of US History. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

This is the voice of reason, Pat. Many thanks for your objective perspective. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Mr. Prudhomme, I don't have details on the capital outlay. I do agree that starting even a small business requires a small capital outlay, and Oswald was earning around minimum wage (around $1.25 an hour in 1963) with a family to feed in New Orleans -- and was fired (or laid off) from Reily's in only a few weeks, so he took unemployment insurance to support his family -- a pittance. Where did the capital outlay come from? I think Jim Garrison answered that question deftly when he identified Clay Shaw as one of the JFK conspirators in New Orleans. A millionaire would easily be able to cast about the $20 here, $40 there, as needed to rent office space, mimeographs, brochures, handbills, membership cards, stationery, stamps and so on. It appears that Oswald also had pin money ready-to-hand -- for example, to help him hand out FPCC handbills near Canal Street (in front of Clay Shaw's Trade Mart buliding) Oswald hired two boys from the local unemployment insurance office at $2 an hour. (That's about $20 an hour adjusted for inflation today). The boys jumped at the opportunity. (One boy, however, later found himself answering to the FBI and his father.) My point is that Oswald didn't even earn $2 an hour, so how could he afford to pay others $2 an hour? Obviously he couldn't -- but Clay Shaw could. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Robert, here's another dialectical paradox about Lee Harvey Oswald. Marguerite Oswald often claimed that her son was 'the greatest hero' because he died in the line of duty, working for one of the Intelligence Agencies. In my theory, Marguerite Oswald was half-right. IMHO we know that Lee Oswald was not a full-time employee of any Intelligence Agency -- however, insofar as he was falsely but deliberately made into the Lone Assassin by the Warren Commission for the specific purpose of National Security, then we might easily argue that Lee Harvey Oswald single-handedly prevented World War 3. So, June and Rachel can both be right, within these nuances. Oswald was a martyr -- because he was victimized by his own associates; and yet Oswald was also a hero, because without the "Lone Assassin" mythology, the USA might easily have plunged into a Civil War during the Cold War which would have ignited a World War. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

No, Robert, it's not a clear instance, because in fact there still remain 20 witnesses to the beating of Marina Oswald. Now -- that doesn't mean they were all *eye* witnesses, and that number includes Marina herself. As for *eye* witnesses to her bruises we counted seven (not counting Marina) including one *eye* witness to Lee in the act of striking Marina (in the face, hard, twice, while she was holding baby June in her arms). Three of those *eye* witnesses directly confronted Lee Harvey Oswald with his abuse, and all three were told by Oswald, in effect, to mind their own business. That means that of the 20 witnesses I identified from Warren Commission records, 12 were only *ear* witnesses, that is, they reported hearing from their friends that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina Oswald. (And as you pointed out, at least one of those *ear* witnesses admitted he never even met the Oswalds.) Although "hear-say" testimony would not hold up in a Civil Court, that is totally aside from my key point -- the abstract count of precisely 20 people named in the Warren Commission to the effect that in Texas (but not in Minsk or New Orleans) Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina. The witnesses include Oswald's own mother, for pity's sake, who was his most rigorous defender. Those are the numbers. Those numbers are facts. There is no lie whatsoever there -- nor is there any intention to deceive anybody in any of that accounting. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Sorry, Paul, that sounds like double-think to me. This antiquated and disproved theory is just a variation on the official story. Old wine in new bottles. The Warren Commission could not find a motive for Lee, and neither could Garrison. Have you had any better luck in finding a motive? So, Raymond, allow me to explain a bit further about the complex nuances of the participation of Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of JFK. This will clarify my opinion about the motive of Oswald. First, I maintain that Lee Harvey Oswald knew the people who framed him. Of course, this cannot mean that Oswald knew that he was being framed at the time. He was ignorant of that fact. But Oswald willingly endured all the many stages of the framing (i.e. the sheep-dipping) procedure. Insofar as Oswald was a ignorant that he was being framed (while he was clearly being framed) Oswald was therefore also ignorant of the reason, that is, of the goal, of his being framed. That is, he did not know that his framers were planning to frame him specifically for the assassination of JFK. Yet, Oswald went through all the steps of being framed -- ignorantly -- because he thought he was being groomed for some other plot. To the best of my knowledge today (and in harmony with the politics of 1963) I believe Oswald believed he was being groomed to enter Cuba through Mexico City to KILL FIDEL CASTRO. Otherwise, there was little reason for Lee Harvey Oswald to spend most of the summer of 1963 in New Orleans, pretending to be an officer of an FPCC chapter in New Orleans -- a fake FPCC chapter, with only one member -- himself. For that is the substance of what Oswald did in New Orleans. He didn't go there to find work, evidently, because he was fired from his job at the Reily Coffee Company after less than 12 weeks there. He was taken to Clinton (by David Ferrie and Clay Shaw) to apply for a job at a mental hospital, but he refused to apply! Rather, Oswald spent much of his time fabricating a fake FPCC chapter in New Orleans, and getting filmed handing out FPCC handbills, getting arrested, calling the FBI to his jail cell, appearing in the newspapers, radio and TV with Carlos Bringuier and other Cuban Exiles. This was the reason Oswald was in New Orleans. This was the activity of the sheep-dip itself. Oswald cooperated with his framers, his sheep-dippers, not because he wanted to be framed for killing JFK (although that is what his framers planned), instead, IMHO, Oswald cooperated with them because he thought it would benefit him personally. One of the things Lee Oswald said to Marina in New Orleans was that he was going to be 'Prime Minister of the USA' one day. He was speaking to her in 'Russian' imagery, teasing her, probably, but he was probably promised by his handlers that if he was successful in his "Operation Mongoose" type of mission, that he could obtain (in addition to a lot of cash and a big parade in his honor) a chance to run for public office in the USA. (Probably, too, his Marine discharge would also be upgraded from "undesirable" as he desired.) So, I see Oswald working closely and energetically with the plotters of the JFK assassination -- but not to kill JFK. Oswald planned to kill Fidel Castro. That would explain why the FPCC chapter he promoted was a fake chapter, with an address in the same building as Guy Banister (with kudos to Jim Garrison for highlighting that to the world). Guy Banister probably told Lee Oswald that FPCC officers got easy passage to Cuba from Mexico City. That was true, actually, for genuine FPCC officers. But Guy Banister probably also told Oswald that the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City could be easily fooled with enough newspaper clippings "proving" he was an FPCC member. Naturally it didn't work. Guy Banister probably laughed his head off along with David Ferrie about this. But the Cuban Embassy would turn down Oswald's request for instant passage to Mexico by slamming the door shut, so to speak. That failure would dash Oswald's dreams of his big parade -- but it was also the crowning achievement of Guy Banister & Company. The sheep-dip of Lee Harvey Oswald was complete -- and Oswald willingly participated every last step of the way. So, Raymond, this is why I say that Lee Harvey Oswald knew his framers, the killers of JFK, and cooperated with them, even though he himself had no personal animosity against JFK. The actual motives of Oswald could never be told by the Warren Commission, because that would immediately identify his framers, the actual killers of JFK, namely, the leaders of the radical right in the USA in 1963. If they had been named, then there would have been blood in the streets of Main Street, USA. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Robert, I think you miss the point. For instance, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, some might call me a xxxx. That would be based on my saying what they believe to be untrue. However if I were to say that beliving it to be the truth, I am not telling a lie, I am merely wrong. John's rule regarding that is meant to, amongst other things, stop such an accusation. It is also meant to stop such an accusation when the two parties are in disagreement. For example, if I were to say that President Obama was a secret agent for the forces of the antichrist and you believed he was a step forward for the forces of good, could you call me a xxxx when I said something that I said - untrue and misguided as it may be - beliveing it to be correct? If you believe someone is incorrect then you say that they are incorrect and present your evidence to support your case; readers will make their own judgments. If you believe someone is deliberately saying things they know to be untrue then you contact th moderators, present your case, and ask that you call accuse them. If you case is strong enough then an exemption will be made otherwise you just have to be satisfied with showing that what someone has said is wrong. Evan, I agree completely. It is one thing to claim that a writer has made a mistake, and it is something entirely different to publicly accuse that person of being a xxxx. Where I work, an executive will commonly use the phrase, "I lied," when correcting himself or herself about something trivial, i.e. a scheduling time. It is now common usage; people conflate a mistake with a "lie". Yet a lie means a "deliberate deception" with an intention to mislead. It is quite different from a mistake. People who attack mistakes and try to pass them off as "lies" really waste everybody's time here. They have nothing substantial to contribute -- and this was my personal complaint about Tom Scully. Hours of wasted time with little constructive dialogue. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

A lot of IF's there. I would suggest that the theory that Lee Oswald was innocent of shooting JFK but part of the conspiracy is the oldest, tiredest cliche in JFK research. As nearly everyone knows, that was Jim Garrison's theory, and you will find the same theory in Crossfire, by Jim Marrs, and numerous conspiracy books. I submit that that theory has JFK left research in the wilderness since the mid-sixties, as researchers have been scrambling(in vain) to find evidence implicating Lee Oswald in the plot. Exactly right about all the IFs, Raymond. I no way do I propose that this is all easy or wrapped up. Interesting that you'd bring up Jim Garrison and Jim Marrs in the notion that Oswald was innocent of the crime but involved in the conspiracy -- they are two of my favorite writers on the topic. Yet just because a theory is old does not mean it is incorrect. Perhaps it has not really had a full development. Perhaps a new look is in order. Harry Dean also proposes something (a little) like that when he suggests that Oswald was chummy with Loran Hall and Larry Howard, and met Guy Gabaldon in Mexico City within the context of his DACA organization. (Harry also confesses that his crew played a role in framing Oswald.) Gerry Patrick Hemming also proposes something (a little) like that when he claimed to A.J. Weberman that he offered Oswald double the price of this rifle if he would bring it to the TSBD building on 22 November 1963. The likelihood that Oswald knew is framers is high, IMHO. Further, the only reason that Oswald was in New Orleans at all -- by any reasonable estimation -- was so that Guy Banister & Company could frame him perfectly as an FPCC officer. The error that Oswald was a legitimate officer of the FPCC is still repeated to this very day (even though the Warren Commission itself recognized that it was a fake FPCC chapter). Not enough attention is given this argument -- that Oswald is both innocent (in a way) and guilty (in a way) at the same time. It seems to be difficult for modern writers to grasp nuances like that -- they want Oswald to be totally guilty or totally innocent, with no nuances. This error underscores another problem -- I also claim that the US government is both guilty of the cover-up (in a way) and innocent of the cover-up (in a way) because they have a damn good explanation -- National Security in the face of a probable Civil War. Again, the nuance is difficult for some writers to balance. Feelings run high among those who have devoted years -- decades -- to the resolution of the JFK case. Adding that to the complexity of the dialectical balancing act of Reality only adds to the frustration. This is the price we pay to become involved. Some people cannot handle the ambiguity, and they lose their tempers, either in posts of bullying, like Tom Scully, or with insults of a more comic variety. But it is the subject matter that is the source of the amibiguity. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Why not just go with the evidence instead. His exact words were: They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a Patsy." Jim Garrison and his acolytes always omit the first part and simply twist the plain meaning of the words to support their wacky theory of the case. Raymond, I believe that Oswald said, "I'm just a Patsy" at least twice. The second time, he didn't preface it with the USSR remark. Am I mistaken about this? I might be recollecting pictures from dramatic reproductions. Still, you raise a good point, Raymond. Why did Oswald preface his "patsy" remark immediately after a "Soviet Union" remark? One possible response is that the newspaper reporters themselves surprised Oswald with that reference. In his first interview, Oswald said [and I paraphrase]: --------------------- BEGIN Exchange ------------------- LHO: "...I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance." REPORTER: Did you kill the president?" LHO: No, I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me, yet. The first I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question. REPORTER: You have been in Russia? LHO: Sir? REPORTER: What did you do in Russia? LHO: <walks away> Notice that Oswald refused to dignify that question. Now, given that as orienting Oswald for the first time regarding his arrest and imprisonment, we can make better sense of the following exchange later in the hallway, heading back to his interrogation room: REPORTER: Did you kill the president? LHO: No! They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy! ----------------------- END Exchange ---------------- Now, I think I got that right. This could suggest that Oswald's "Soviet Union" remark was conditioned by the newspaper reporters themselves. If so, then any connection to the next remark, "I'm Just a Patsy," might be looser than we might first suspect. If so, then it could suggest that Oswald knew his framers. In that case, it suggests a dialectical paradox that the previous 50 years of JFK research has sorely neglected: that Lee Harvey Oswald was both innocent of shooting JFK, and nevertheless part of the conspiracy to kill JFK. If (and only if) that is correct, then here is where the future of JFK research begins. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edited and extended>

"profoundly aware" sez Mister Mindreader. "I've been charged with shooting a- a policeman. I know nothing more than that," Lee Oswald told reporters, and I defy you to provide credible evidence that he was lying. "I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance" was aimed primarily at the American Civil Liberties Union, as we know from other evidence not to some conspiratorial "friends" as Mr. Trejo's imagination claims. Strange bedfellows: Vincent Bugliosi argues in his book that one reason he knew there was no conspiracy was because Oz would have to know who framed him.... Raymond, you say you "know" that Oswald was addressing the ACLU with his plea for legal assistance, but really that is only your surmise of the evidence. You can't read his mind (any more than I can). By the way, I do realize that my proposition that Oswald knew his framers (though too late) is based on my own surmise of the evidence. I don't claim to read his mind, but I do connect the dots differently than you do. IMHO, Lee Harvey Oswald had no idea that Guy Banister & Company was sheep-dipping him to appear to be a Communist, and more specifically, an officer of the FPCC (a true friend and ally of Fidel Castro). Banister & Company had Lee Harvey Oswald on film in the streets with FPCC handbills, in jail, in an FBI report, in the newspapers, on a radio program and on a television show. This was uptown sheep-dipping. Very sophisticated. Yet Oswald was unaware at that time that he was being framed. So -- Bugliosi was mistaken -- Lee Harvey Oswald did know his framers -- the problem is that Oswald realized too late that he had been framed. After he realized that his "partners" were not going to rescue him, he then blurted out for the whole world to hear: "I'm just a Patsy! " Oswald finally realized it -- and by realizing that fact, he knew exactly who his framers were. But he didn't break faith with them. He didn't turn them in to the reporters or the police. Lee Harvey Oswald was always hopeful (and that's how he got framed in the first place). Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Len, perhaps you suspect that John Simkin had no words with Tom or Jim before his decision. I, on the other hand, suspect that John had plenty of words with them both; and I suspect that the decision to drop them was to some degree their own. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I agree, Douglas. So, here are some ideas that I believe are truly futuristic in JFK research: 1. That Lee Harvey Oswald, while decidedly not the "lone assassin" of JFK, was nevertheless profoundly aware of who the JFK conspirators were, and was counting on them to 'come forward to give him legal assistance.' 2. That the US government, which pursued the "lone assassin" theory to blame Lee Harvey Oswald (while knowing precisely who was being protected by this "lone assassin" theory) nevertheless was not a party to the JFK killing, but acted to prevent a US Civil War (at a peak of the Cold War which could have ignited World War 3). In other words, the US government acted exactly as they said, for National Security reasons. 3. Thus, organized private citizens with US military expertise should be the proper suspects in future JFK investigation. These three nuances have been neglected in the previous 50 years of JFK research (to the best of my knowledge). IMHO the reason that the JFK assassination remains unresolved is because these three nuances have been overlooked. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Tommy, I notice that you have sometimes edited your posts after sending them, too. As for speed typing, sometimes it comes with speed thinking, so mistakes can happen. I corrected it, that's the key. But please, let's not let these picayune trivialities get in the way of the point of the thread. Lee Harvey Oswald was not an Intelligence agent -- but he was attempting to be one. He had no protection or insider source of information from the Agencies. Also, his ambition exceeded his capabilities. My main point in the past week was that the primary purpose of Oswald's episode in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 was to be sheep-dipped (framed) by Guy Banister & Co. (Of course, Oswald had no idea this was going to happen.) All of his actions -- starting with taking a job at Reilly Coffee Company, only a couple of blocks from Guy Banister's office, to quitting that job, to almost applying for a job at Clinton and getting a haircut there, to handing out FPCC leaflets to his fake FPCC chapter, to fighting with Carlos Bringuier (yes, Bringuier), to calling the FBI once he was in jail in New Orleans, to appearing on the radio with Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler, to appearing on television with Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler (as I recall) -- all of this was part of the sheep-dip. But Lee Harvey Oswald didn't know he was being framed. Lee Harvey Oswald thought that this was only one more step in his attempt to become a full-time employee of an Intelligence Agency. That was the only reason that Oswald went along with it. And that is my answer to your question, Tommy. How was Oswald manipulated into being a Patsy? Precisely because he wanted to become a full-time employee of an Intelligence Agency so badly, that he would go to any lengths for that purpose. Guy Banister, knowing this, lied and lied to Lee Harvey Oswald. Guy Banister knew very well that the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City would never admit Lee Harvey Oswald into Cuba, even with an armful of newspaper clippings "proving" that Oswald was an officer of the FPCC. At the end of the summer of 1963, thanks to the genius of Guy Banister & Company, Lee Harvey Oswald had been in the newspapers, in jail, in an FBI report, filmed on the street, on a radio program and on a television show -- all showing him to be a Communist. Lee Harvey Oswald would follow Guy Banister anywhere to get a job in the Intelligence community. There's my answer. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Dear Paul, You've confused the anti-Castro Cuban, Carlos Bringuier, with New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello. Warmest regards, --Tommy I noticed my speed-typing typo, Tommy, and I'd corrected it some hours ago. I'll take this opportunity, though, to express some gratitude for this thread, because I really like your question, "If Oswald Was an Intelligence Agent of Some Sort, How Was He Manipulated Into Being a Patsy?" It helps the reader focus on the real, historical personality of Lee Harvey Oswald. It clarifies that although Lee Oswald was close to the intelligence community, he was never fully accepted by them. It also allows me to articulate my opinion about Lee Oswald as a complex character. He beat Marina when they lived in Texas, but not when they lived in Minsk or in New Orleans. Thus he was not a "wife beater" as such, but only during a particular period of a particular stress that the Dallas Russian Community exerted upon him, IMHO. Also, he was very talented -- and very flawed. Perhaps his youth was his main flaw. Nevertheless, I continue to maintain that the official Intelligence community is innocent of the patsification and the death of Lee Harvey Oswald. The perpetrators of the patsification of Lee Oswald were the same perpetrators of the assassination of JFK. These were not, IMHO, government officials, but private individuals. The main goal of these private individuals was the invasion of Cuba and the death of Fidel Castro. The perpetrators convinced themselves and each other that the death of JFK would inspire the USA to invade Cuba. (Those who hated JFK would invade Cuba once free of JFK's shackles, and those who loved JFK would invade Cuba out of revenge for JFK's death by an alleged Communist. That was the dream.) But in the minutes before Lee Harvey Oswald was captured, countless newsmen and readers around the USA were certain that the right-wing radicals in the USA were the JFK killers. It was critical that the people must be thrown a patsy to throw them off the trail. The foresight of planning to make Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy of the JFK assassination was a stroke of brilliance that has no precedence in US history. (It had been done in Europe before, but not in the USA until 1963.) Yet the perpetrators of the JFK assassination learned the hard way -- very few believed that the Communists killed JFK. Most folks knew that the USSR and Cuba had more to lose with any other American President than with JFK. Very few believed that Oswald was really a Communist -- that's the bottom line. The USA was not tempted to invade Cuba. (For a while we were tempted to invade the John Birch Society book stores.) In answer to your thread's question, Tommy, Lee Harvey Oswald could be made into the patsy for the JFK plot precisely because he was not an Intelligence agent; rather, he was an outspoken, pushy youngster who wanted to be a 007 spy, and not a real spy who works his ordinary low wage job and lays low for years at a time. Lee Harvey Oswald could be made into a patsy because he was too ambitious, and too gullible. Guy Banister completely pulled the wool over the eyes of Lee Harvey Oswald. The entire New Orleans episode is the story of how Guy Banister & Co. used newspaper, radio and television to make Lee Harvey Oswald appear to be an officer of the FPCC in New Orleans. Yet even the Warren Commission acknowledged that Oswald's FPCC chapter was a fake. It's always amazing to me how people who claim to be conservative and who accept the Warren Commission with all its errors, still miss this key point -- Oswald's FPCC chapter in New Orleans was a fake! And therefore, Oswald was a fake Communist. And therefore, it should be clear that the entire FPCC episode in New Orleans was precisely the episode that transformed Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

David, IMHO Jim Garrison showed amply that Claw Shaw was the bank-roller for Guy Banister. Clay Shaw was a money-man, and he had to know the secrets, because he wanted to know what his money was being used for. Yet I don't think Clay Shaw did much more than approve the proposals and hand over some money for the actions. This is one step removed from the ground-crew, as I see it. There were many other money-donors to the JFK assassination plot, and most of that money got wasted and frittered away on flailing about. For example, I feel confident that Carlos Marcello donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill JFK. There is talk of a half-million dollar contract that he put out on JFK, and it probably was funnelled through his legal aid group, which consisted of Guy Banister and David Ferrie -- these guys actively supported this Mafia boss. I've read that David Ferrie personally flew Carlos Marcello back to the USA from Guatemala when RFK banished him there. Guy Banister ensured Carlos had a clean reputation in the eyes of the powerful. Santos Trafficante also donated countless thousands of dollars to kill JFK, I've read, and so did Sam Giancana through Johnny Rosselli. On the Texan side, it is widely rumored that H.L. Hunt contributed freely to extreme right-wing causes, including the Birchers and the Minutemen in Texas, as well as others. His sons did the same, I've read, and so did many other oil billionaires in Dallas who were also members of the John Birch Society, or Freinds of Walker groups. Yet it is difficult to distinguish between money handed over to kill Fidel Castro, and money handed over to kill JFK. The funds were probably going to the same players in both cases. Then there was Charles Milteer -- the millionaire, racist and radical rightist; he is rumored to have donated hundreds of thousands to JFK assassination plots. So, that's my opinion of Clay Shaw. He was one of dozens of rich men who threw money at anybody who talked wildly about killing JFK. The crazy guys in his world were David Ferrie and Guy Banister. Ferrie probably went to the same parties as Clay Shaw -- while Guy Banister was all business, and could be trusted to be confidential in the extreme. There is lots of eye-witness evidence that Clay Shaw was seen in Clinton, LA with Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie. What was Oswald doing there? He was applying for a steady job at a hospital. He even got a haircut there, and talked about registering to vote. But while Oswald was getting his haircut, he learned that the hospital to which he was going to apply that day was an insane asylum, and so he refused to apply, no matter how much Ferrie and Shaw objected. Why bother with a job in Clinton, at all? Because, IMHO, when doing secret operations, it is mandatory to have a Front to show the world and the IRS, so that one could have plausible deniability. This was one of Oswald's weak points. He didn't like to lay low. He refused to keep these petty jobs that spies are obliged to take and hold while they are doing undercover work. Oswald quit his job at Leslie Welding, he was fired from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, and he was fired from the Reilly Coffee Company. This is one of the complaints that George De Mohrenschildt laid on Lee Oswald. Here is another example -- his handlers wanted him to have a steady job. Here was a job at a hospital in Clinton; and Oswald flatly refused to interview for the job. Well -- Oswald saw it a different way: Clay Shaw was rich. Clay Shaw could easily give Oswald $10 a day for playing spy, rather than have Oswald working for $1.25 an hour chasing and wrestling the insane. But other than being one of the money bags, I don't see much more of a role for Clay Shaw in the JFK assassination -- especially at the street level. More important than Clay Shaw in New Orleans was Carlos Bringuier. We have Carlos and Lee Oswald in the newspapers together, in jail together, on the radio together and on television together (as I recall). Carlos Bringuier and Lee Harvey Oswald spent a lot of time together in New Orleans -- and Guy Banister was the common link between the two. Carlos belonged to the radical right-wing group of Cuban Exiles named the D.R.E. Ex-General Walker was also a supporter of the DRE; and Oswald had the DRE headquarters phone number in his personal phone book. Also imporant is Ed Butler, a Cuban-American with superb media experience (for 1963). He had radio expertise and television expertise, and evidently he was the producer for the well-known radio program, Radio Free Cuba. This was so popular that even the CIA got behind Ed Butler. Ed Butler was the one who set up a radio show and a television show for Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans. Ed Butler also arranged to have Lee Harvey Oswald filmed in front of Clay Shaw's Trade Mart in New Orleans, handing out FPCC handbills. (Who films a Communist handing out handbills? Answer: only a propaganda specialist!) Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler were personal associates of Guy Banister -- but it was David Ferrie who spoke to them in Spanish, and he spoke in their rightist vocabulary, too. Ferrie hated JFK with a passion because of the Bay of Pigs, and he drilled this into his Cuban Exile followers. In early September, Loran Hall told Sylvia Odio that Lee Harvey Oswald said [and I paraphrase]: "you Cubans don't have any guts because you should have killed JFK after the Bay of Pigs." George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt both said that Lee Harvey Oswald expressed those exact same sentiments in Dallas, Texas, when he was living there. It's too bad that Marina Oswald was kept in the dark about all this. She was the source for Priscilla Johnson's book on Marina and Lee, and she had no clue at all about Oswald's many contacts in New Orleans. As far as Marina Oswald was concerned, Lee Harvey Oswald was a "lone" activist. Marina told all the truth that she knew, but Lee Oswald hid so much of the truth from Marina. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

This is good evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald always wanted to be a spy -- and he worked hard for the chance. He volunteered for everything, hoping to strike it rich one day, and become a candidate for a full-time job with one of the intelligence agencies of the US government. Oswald had a lot going for him -- ye was young, he was a Marine, he had a high-security clearance because he was trained in radar operations, he was taught Russian -- and best of all, he was selected along with 35-39 other young men to be 'dangled' in the USSR for intelligence purposes. Unfortunately, Oswald was never offered a full-time job with any intelligence agency -- IMHO because he married Marina Prussakova while in the USSR, and rushed her home to meet his family, probably breaking his ONI contract. Yet he never gave up -- IMHO he kept trying to become a spy by doing odd jobs for the FBI and perhaps the CIA. Yet things were going too slow. Also, Oswald was young and undereducated -- he had zero college. So, when George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt worked on Oswald at a Dallas party for engineers in early 1963, trying to convince Oswald to transfer his anger over the Bay of Pigs to anger over the Ole Miss riots and ex-General Walker, Oswald over-reacted. It seems to me that Oswald actually did try to kill General Walker -- the material evidence is overwhelming. If so, then when George De Mohrenschildt expressed his suspicions to Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin on Easter Sunday, 1963, and Mrs. Voshinin immediately phoned the FBI about it (viz. Dick Russell, TMWKTM) that was the point when Lee Harvey Oswald lost every chance of ever being hired by the FBI, ONI or CIA for anything important. Just as George De Mohrenschildt testified before the Warren Commission [i paraphrase]: "no government would be stupid enough to trust Lee Harvey Oswald with anything important." It was in early April 1963 that Oswald, IMHO, took a shot at ex-General Walker and missed. It was in late April 1963 that Oswald arrived in New Orleans, and began, IMHO, reporting to Guy Banister and David Ferrie. Little did Lee Harvey Oswald know, but Guy Banister had a good friend, Medford Evans, who was also a good friend of ex-General Edwin Walker, who sized up the situation. Banister and Walker were both officers in Robert De Pugh's Minutemen paramilitary organization. Guy Banister would now sheep-dip Oswald on behalf of his friend, Edwin Walker. Although Lee Harvey Oswald had no further chances of becoming an employee of the US intelligence community, he was naive enough to believe everything that Guy Banister told him. Banister led Oswald along by promising him a great career in secret operations. His first task, said Banister, was to head up a fake FPCC branch in New Orleans. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., this goes back to my earlier hypothesis that Oswald could be made into a patsy precisely because he was not an Intelligence agent, but was merely a trainee, or a part-time, low-level gopher, doing odd jobs for the ONI, the CIA and the FBI with his Minox camera, as petty jobs came up. Oswald probably hoped his good performance with these odd jobs would lead to full-time employment in the future. In any case, his lack of a college degree probably doomed him to a lifetime of frustration -- he would never be selected, but he might die trying. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Yes, I'm familiar with that thread, Ian, and it's fairly good. Yet I think one aspect was omitted -- namely -- why did the authorities drag their feet when faced with a demand to review the Western Union records? We know that Western Union wanted to be careful of its reputation for secrecy and confidentiality, because their income (and thus their survival) depends on their confidentiality. So, they wanted to make a big show to the public that the only way they would ever divulge secret details of Western Union transactions would be if the US Government gave them a court order -- a warrant. We expected that. And then we expected to see the warrant. But nooo. Instead, we got a lot more resistance in general -- and why was that? I have an opinion: IMHO, the reason that the authorities dragged their feet and refused to show the Western Union records was that the FBI themselves were the senders of those petty $10 and $20 checks to Lee Harvey Oswald. That would also explain why C.A. Hamblen dragged his own feet, when asked point blank about his original claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was the guy who made all the commotion in his offices over his petty $10 and $20 checks. In other words, the FBI told the Western Union they had better not show anybody those records, or else. Then, Western Union told C.A. Hamblen that he better not show anybody those records, or else. So to keep his job C.A. Hamblen had to go back on his original story, and claim, "I don't recall anymore." IMHO this hypothesis makes all these pieces fit together. So, I believe the original story by C.A. Hamblen. I believe that Oswald retrieved petty checks from Western Union in Dallas. I further believe that the FBI was the source of those checks. I further believe that the FBI applied pressure on Western Union to withhold that information. I further believe that Western Union applied pressure on C.A. Hamblen to change his story to the Warren Commission. I expect this will all be revealed in 2038, when the official Lee Harvey Oswald files are finally released. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

I also look forward to reading Bill Simpich's new book when it comes out. I'm currently digesting Larry's SMHT, and find it intriguing. I'm currently focused on the argument of the short, blond "Oswald" in Mexico City described by Sylvia Duran, and shown to the HSCA by Fidel Castro himself. Presuming this is correct information, here is where I opine using Dick Russell's TMWKTM: Richard Case Nagell warned Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans that if Oswald succeeded in getting passage to Cuba through Mexico City, that Nagell would shoot Oswald dead. It was around that time that Oswald began to panic in New Orleans -- and he began to bother Marina Oswald with the crazy idea of helping him hi-jack a commercial airplane to Cuba. She told him he was nuts. At that same time, Ron Lewis reports that Lee Oswald was also bothering him about helping to hi-jack a plane to Cuba. Ron Lewis told Oswald that he had to calm down -- because it was only 90 miles from Florida to Cuba, so Oswald only needed to hi-jack a small, private plane from a small air field, and it would make fewer headlines, which would be better appreciated by Fidel Castro's boys. (That night, if my time-track is correct, Lee Oswald was much relieved at home, and he reported to Marina that "Cuba is only 90 miles from Florida; did you know that?") So -- it appears that Lee Oswald was worried that Richard Case Nagell was really going to kill him in Mexico City. If (and only if) this is correct, then we might suppose that Oswald hired somebody to take his place in Mexico City at the Cuban and Russian Embassies. (Much in the same way that Oswald hired a random stranger to help him hand out FPCC leaflets in New Orleans for the cameras.) That way, if Nagell was going to kill anybody for gaining passage to Cuba, he might kill the imposter instead. My methodology is Occam's razor; I want to use all the available evidence to make a scenario, leaving out as little as possible, and adding no new people into the story unless absolutely necessary. This is why I hesitate to start naming CIA people high and low. We have enough people at the ground-level that we don't need to postulate any CIA involvement up to this point. Guy Banister is high-powered. Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler were highly motivated, and had plenty of propaganda experience to sheep-dip Oswald. The CIA simply isn't mandatory as a hypothesis at the street-level at this point, IMHO. Best regards, --Paul Trejo