Andrej Stancak

On 2/27/2020 at 8:13 AM, Ed LeDoux said:

He did have the possibility of meeting Ruth and Marina for a shoe shopping expedition they were planning to do that afternoon. (postponed due to Kennedy death)
Recall Lee did ask Marina to buy shoes for Junie.
The shoe store sighting has always said to me Lee checked the store but since his wife wasn't there he went to the theater to waste time... or simply saw what kids shoes they had in the display...?

Please correct me if I misunderstood the new scenario for Lee Oswald, however, this is what I get from Ed's posts: Lee Oswald somehow got to Oak Cliff (route unknown), to the shoe store where he was supposed to meet Marina  and Ruth Paine with their children and buy shoes for June. The randezvous was cancelled because of Kennedy's assassination but he went to that shoe store anyway. As Marina and Ruth and children did not turn up (but the meeting was already postponed so why would Lee expect them to come), he went to Texas Theatre just to spent time there. 

I find this scenario improbable and logically inconsistent but what is of greater concern is that nowhere in this scenario is there any stop at a place where Lee could change his clothing. Lee Oswald left, at least some people still assume so, 1026 North Beckley about 7.30 AM on Thursday, November 21. He went to work and after work, instead of returning to his rooming house, he went to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier. He then came straight to work on the next day, November 22, without being able to change his clothing. Thus, he had the same work clothes on him the whole Thursday and Friday morning. 

The point is that Lee changed both his pants and his Briarloom shirt before his arrest. That has been discussed in another thread, however, if someone is able to prove that Lee Oswald wore the same dark brown shirt CE150 both on Friday morning and Friday afternoon after his arrest,  he/she can be congratulated for clearing one of the greatest mysteries in JFKA case because, under such scenario, Lee Oswald could not be Prayer Man. The dark CE150 would not fit the shirt seen on Prayer Man in Darnell, only the light-red CE151 shirt would. 

Take away 1026 North Beckley (or some other credible address) as a place where Lee Oswald changed his pants and shirt after he left the Depository and Lee Oswald can be discarded as Prayer Man. 

Late edit: it is easier to see that Lee Oswald, if he was Prayer Man,  changed his slacks after he left the Depository because those he wore at the time of his arrest were very dark, possibly black, while Prayer Man's pants are of much lighter colour.

John:

some of the authors I quoted spoke to Mrs. or Mr. Johnson. They were conspiracy researchers and sensitive to any false information fitting the official version. These people were not gullible or poorly informed. It is therefore useful to know their views. Actually, it is part of good research to familiarise with the views of first or second generation researchers. 

Ed:

thanks for taking time to respond. However, I find your responses as again diverging away from the simple question I asked. Your last post is enough for me to see that you do not have any positive evidence about alternative address of Lee Oswald in October and November 1963. How many people had to lie to make your story possible? Ten, twenty? How many people would have to lie under oath and risk ending in jail and loss any self-respect for the rest of their lives? People usually do not lie, only if their existence or existence of their loved ones is in grave danger. However, this was not the case of witnesses in 1026 North Beckley.

I can now retire from this thread. Actually, I may come back if Mrs Pat Hall would respond to my request for information regarding the keys rules in North Beckley rooming house. The lack of keys in Lee Oswald's possession during his arrest puzzles me and I would like to understand this point. 

1 hour ago, Ed LeDoux said:

Andrej that would be your own deficit if you can not accept evidence as evidence. This is not cryptic writing.

The 'facts 'are that nothing Steve, yourself or the authorities put forth is convincing, let alone verified.

Quite the contrary, no matter the "style" presented the fact is no evidence showed Oswald stayed at Beckley.

Phone numbers in books do not suffice.

Why do you feel the need to appeal to authority when these authorities have been discredited is the question I have for you Andrej.

If you, Andrej are on a bus from work to a theater then obviously you did not change clothing mid stream.  

The wild rides to get Oswald to Beckley have too been dismantled.

They never happened.

So why is the continuation of the Warren Commission's route for Oswald any more sacred?

It is no longer possible that these murders were feats of Oswald's. The police were framing Oswald just like many others. We know Will Fritz's true history and how he worked.

To say any of the essay or these facts are disputed is disingenuous. 

They merely upset you and your apple cart, guess you should watch the road rather than polls or popular notions.

Better buckle up Andrej, more curves ahead.

Cheers, Ed

PS If you need a translation of the above come to ROKC and It will be apparent.

Ed:

what evidence are you talking about? There are witness testimonies taken under oath and there are interrogation reports saying that Lee Oswald stayed at 1026 North Beckley. There is Pat Hall's interview. There are interviews made by first generation researchers (e.g., Joachim Joesten) which say the same. This is enough evidence and I do not need to show more evidence. After more than 56 years I cannot provide any new evidence. The onus is with you to demonstrate that this evidence does not stand because you have positive evidence for Lee Oswald staying at a different place - you would have an address of that other accommodation, witness testimonies, bills or other documents supporting alternative address of Lee Oswald in October and November 1963. However, you do not have any such evidence. The problem is not me refusing to accept evidence, you see I am accepting it. I just see no evidence on your part.

The authorities I am referring to are well-respected, often first-generation researchers. Their research is more authentic than my ever can be because I am not in position to do my own interviews, watch how people respond, trace all living witnesses associated with 1026 North Beckley, talk to surviving neighbors etc. This is what you should have done if you wished to put forward this topic.

If I ask you about you about the meaning of your sentence alluding that Oswald wore the same clothes at work on Friday morning and after his arrest, you answer this way:

"If you, Andrej are on a bus from work to a theater then obviously you did not change clothing mid stream.  " 

I mean, is this a clear answer? It is not about me taking bus and changing or not changing my clothing before going to movies. May I ask you again to explain your view on whether Lee Oswald did or did not change his clothes after leaving the Depository? It is a simple yes or no. This is a highly relevant question in the context of 1026 North Beckley and the identity of Prayer Man, and actually my strongest reason to spent time with your thread. The point is that Lee did change his pants and shirt after leaving the Depository and before he was arrested. This could only happen at a place where he lived. If he did not change his clothes at his rooming house 1026 North Beckley, where did he? Did Police know about that other address and how if Lee did not tell them? Did they send a fake squad to 1026 North Beckley but actually retrieved his belongings from that other address? Do you have any evidence supporting this scenario?

"They merely upset you and your apple cart, guess you should watch the road rather than polls or popular notions."

No, I am not upset although I admit that I am spending more time with this thread than I would wish. However, it seems that there is just no one from senior members of this Forum wishing to take part and express their views, and I do not want this case to be demolished with faulty interpretations more than it has been done, and so I actually feel obliged to respond. However, I guess I did my bit and if I withdraw from this thread nobody can blame me for not engaging any longer.

"Better buckle up Andrej, more curves ahead. "

You mean, more of similar theories in your sleeve?

"PS If you need a translation of the above come to ROKC and It will be apparent."

I do not need any translation from you or members of another forum. I just want you to write in focused, accurate sentences rather than in your divergent style with some small nasty comments intermingled.

Ed:

I confess I have difficulties following your creative style of writing with references to some stories in which you are posing as the one who can see through and the rest who do not are  fools at best. 

There was an interesting point in your latest post about the key not being found in Lee Oswald's possessions. I wonder if Mrs Pat Hall could be asked about how the rooming house operated as far as guest keys are concerned. Else, the missing key is a real red flag.

Could you please explain the following:

"Where would he get the jacket and pistol to kill Tipppit, yeah... let alone change his clothes TO those of Prayerman."

What do you mean with "...let alone change his clothes TO those of Prayerman" ? 

Ed:

several outstanding researchers interviewed people who witnessed Oswald's presence at 1026 North Beckley. Other researchers did not speak to those people but they are not gullible and information they communicate in their books can be trusted. None had questioned North Beckley as Lee Oswald's rooming house.

Please find here quotes from outstanding books and well-respected authors. None of them had questioned 1026 North Beckley as Lee Oswald's address. Maybe these authors, if not Steve or me, can awake a bit of doubt in your mind about whether pursuing your extraordinary theory is sound and whether it does any good to the JFKA case. 

Dane, Stan: Prayer Man: Out of the Shadows and into the Light, Martian Publishing, 2015, Location 3912 in Kindle Edition.

“Sean replied Prayer Man's shirt appears to be buttoned up fairly high. Fritz's transcription of Bookhout's interrogation notes indicates that Oswald told Fritz he changed shirts back at his rooming house—the shirt he was wearing when arrested was not the shirt he went to work in—that was a "reddish" shirt. A "maroon and grey cotton" shirt was found among Oswald's effects at N. Beckley Ave.  "What I wouldn't give to see a photo of it," said Sean.”

[A.S.: Sean, the photograph you wished to view was acquired from NARA in June 2019 and posted on EF a few times.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garrison, Jim. On the Trail of the Assassins: One Man's Quest to Solve the Murder of President Kennedy . Paperless Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. Location 3255.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Griggs, Ian. No Case To Answer . JFKLancer Productions & Publications, Inc.. Kindle Edition., location 3446

Joesten, Joachim. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (p. 73). Iconoclassic Books. Kindle Edition. (Spoke to Gladys Johnson)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lane, Mark. Rush to Judgment . The Lane Group, LLC. Kindle Edition. Location 3108

McBride, Joseph. Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit (pp. 431-432). Hightower Press. Kindle Edition. Page 431.

“Gary Murr wrote in his pioneering 1971 monograph, The Murder of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit, “It is true that Oswald was probably heading to his rooming house in Oak Cliff at 12:45 p.m. However, it is inconceivable that the dispatcher or Tippit, or Nelson knew of this. Oswald’s Oak Cliff address was unknown to his wife Marina or his employers at the Book Depository, let alone the Dallas police.” But was it inconceivable? The address of Oswald’s rooming house, 1026 North Beckley Avenue, where he had been living since October, supposedly was not discovered by the police until after his arrest, which was reported at 1:51. But perhaps, with all we have learned in the intervening years since Murr wrote about the Tippit killing, it is not so inconceivable that the Dallas police knew of Oswald’s Oak Cliff address at the time Oswald was headed there from downtown Dallas. Murr’s account shrewdly acknowledges the likelihood that Oswald was en route to Oak Cliff around the time of the radio order allegedly issued to those two officers, allowing the reader to infer (despite Murr’s denial) that there was a direct and suspicious cause… “

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meagher, Sylvia. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities & the Report on the JFK Assassination (p. 229). Skyhorse Publishing. Kindle Edition.

“According to the Report (WR 182) examination of the register at the rooming house revealed that the signature “O. H. Lee” was in Oswald’s handwriting. It seems entirely credible that he registered under that assumed name. He had stayed at another rooming house for a week, and the landlady, Mary Bledsoe, had asked him to leave. Oswald felt, whether or not justifiably, that his history of residence in the Soviet Union and his unpopular political views had provoked his dismissal from jobs and perhaps his eviction from the rooming house. (1H 46) Thus it is understandable if he registered at the Beckley Street establishment under an assumed name; not even the Commission has seen this as criminal in motivation.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marrs, Jim. Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy (pp. 551-552). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

“Oswald left the Depository and made his way to his South Oak Cliff rooming house, where he retrieved his pistol to defend himself. His landlady said that within minutes of his arrival, he hurried from his room after a Dallas police car stopped out front and beeped its horn twice.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summers, Anthony. Not In Your Lifetime: The Assassination of JFK . Headline. Kindle Edition. Loc 4482.

“Superficially, the last forty days of Oswald’s life were unremarkable. After five days renting from a first landlady with whom he did not get on, he took a room at 1026 North Beckley—registering under the name “O. H. Lee.” To the owners of the house and to fellow tenants, Oswald seemed quiet, lonely. He spent most evenings reading or watching television, rarely made conversation. He visited Marina almost every weekend.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope if more research is done and the public and research community are aware, even convinced, of the possibility that these two film documents are the essential evidence in the case capable of disproving the official version of JFK assassination, some progressive politicians in the Congress may exert enough pressure to pass both film to the NARA and the digital copies of the films to the public.  

It would be useful if one Darnell still (or t its part) showing the unknown man standing at the western wall of Depository doorway would appear in the new film with the question if that unknown man could be Lee Oswald. There are all chances that many people out there would start asking this question as well. Including this particular aspect of the case into the new movie would be fully in line with "Lee Oswald did not do it" scenario. If NBC would not grant approval, a frame from a freely available version could be used, of course after checking the copyright issue. 

Late edit: I would be more than happy to provide a few more pieces of data regarding that unknown man including the body height estimate which would certainly strengthen this particular case compared to if only Darnell still but no supporting data would be shown. 

Jeremy:

this thread is not about Steve Roe. It is about finding out whether Lee Oswald did or did not stay at 1026 North Beckley. Being familiar with your expert knowledge of the JFK assassination case, I would be very keen to know what is your view. Do you find enough evidence for the possibility of Lee Oswald staying at 1026 North Beckley, or do you concur with Ed's view saying that Lee Oswald stayed at some other address? 

It is one of the remarkable features of this Forum that we discuss facts and data and not profiles of fellow investigators. If we cannot agree on a certain point, we can always admit it and go each our own ways with no hard feelings. Let us keep it this way. We owe it to pioneers of this Forum.

There are several pieces of evidence speaking for 1026 North Beckley being Lee Oswald's address after his return to Dallas. Please find here the obvious ones:

1. Gladys Johnson testimony for the Warren Commission
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/johnso_g.htm

3. Earlene Roberts's interview.

3. Interview with Pat Hall from 2013 which I posted earlier.

4. FBI agent Hosty's authentic notes,  + his book Assignement: Oswald, + his testimony for the Warren Commission:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hosty.htm

Quote:

Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.

5. Captain Fritz's. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm testimony for the Warren Commission.

Cpt. Fritz was told by one of Police officers that Lee Oswald had a room on Beckley.  Cpt Fritz did not know if it was North or South and this is what he asked Lee Oswald:

Quote:

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him anything about his address or did he volunteer the address?
Mr. FRITZ. He volunteered the address at Beckley?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. FRITZ. Well, I will tell you, whether we asked him or told him one, he never did deny it, he never did deny the Beckley Street address at all. The only thing was he didn't know whether it was north or south.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him whether it was north or south?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, but he didn't know. But from the description of surroundings we could tell it was North Beckley.

I read this in the sense that some Police staff had a foreknowledge of Beckley but Captain Fritz himself did not.

6. Testimony of Officer Potts for the Warren Commission:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Potts.pdf

====================

That said, I do not dispute that there is something very fishy about 1026 North Beckley. First, Bertha Cheek - sister of Earlene Robers  - was in business relations with Jack Ruby who later killed Lee Oswald. Second, some Police members appeared to know Lee Oswald's address before Friday, November 22 and this would be consistent with their plan to frame Lee Oswald.

However, it does not mean that Lee Oswald did not live at 1026 North Beckley. On the contrary: it would be advantageous for the plotters to keep watch over Lee Oswald at a place they knew well.  

Well, shall we now consider the fallacy of 1026 North Beckley as Oswald's address after his return to Dallas in October as a proven fact? Shall we quote this thread as an ultimate proof of 57 years of false belief pertaining Lee Oswald's rooming house? 

What is the one killer fact, the ultimate proof, that would convince all researchers, LNs or CTs, that Lee Oswald did not stay in that rooming house after his return to Dallas?

Is there any other address which was pointed out  by more than one reliable witness to be Lee Oswald's site of residence?

Is there any other supporting fact (e.g., any document of relevance bearing the name of Lee Oswald and another Dallas address in October-November, 1963) converging independently on some other address than 1026 North Beckley?

Was Lee's positive statements he told the interrogators about living in 1026 North Beckley false? How could he invent that address? Or, did he say he had lived somewhere else and Cpt. Fritz just changed that address to 1026 North Beckley? 

Did the Police invent the fake address of 1026 North Beckley right after capturing Lee Oswald and raided his other residence to stage his belongings at 1026 North Beckley? Or, did they have this address in their sleeves and knew they needed to stage 1026 North Beckley already before the assassination?

Is absence of a photograph of Lee's room with Lee belongings in it a proof that the Police had planted his belongings to that small room in 1026 North Beckley? Or, is it rather a proof of a sloppy detective work? 

There are a number of puzzling points which do raise questions about Lee Oswald's whereabouts, however, they appear to result from misunderstanding, honest errors, poor investigation, lack of proper documentation and of course, from urgency to convict Lee Oswald as a killer, and also from active framing accomplished by several people. If Lt. Jack Revill wrote 602 Elsbeth as Lee Oswald's address, it raises a red flag because this address was almost identical with the address at which Lee and Marina lived before moving to Neeley Street - only, how could Revill know about Elsbeth address if a different address was in Roy Truly's records and it was not 1026 North Beckley either.

It may be prudent to try to answer the questions listed on top of my post and only accept refutation of 1026 North Beckley address if these questions can be answered without a shadow of doubt.

I would also recommend to answer points with clear and not too lengthy posts and to avoid mentioning some further hints which only distract from understanding the answer to essential questions.

Jim: 

footnote 255 in Bartholomew's book goes like this:

Epstein, Legend..., p. 206; James Di Eugenio, Destiny Betrayed, (NY: Sheridan Square, 1992), pp. 342-343, n 22.

Thanks for looking into this. 

Does the lady who was eleven years old in 1963 and who knew Mr. Lee from seeing him at Gladys Johnson's rooming house look like she is fabricating her memories?

FBI agent James Hosty appeared to be in contact with the Dallas Police Department on a regular basis. This part is from Assignment:Oswald - describing the moments when Hosty learned about the assassination but did not know about Lee Oswald yet:

"I called the Dallas police station, intelligence unit, and asked to speak to Detective Sergeant H. M. Hart, my counterpart, and the second in command at the intelligence unit there. “Sergeant, Jim Hosty here. I’m compiling a list of radical right-wingers and I was wondering if the police had any of these folks under surveillance today.” “No,” Hart replied. “And we haven’t picked any up today, either. All of us in the intelligence unit were down at the Trade Mart monitoring the Indignant White Citizens Council.”

Hosty, James P.. Assignment: Oswald . Skyhorse Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

It is possible but not confirmed that Sgt. Hart could know about Lee Oswald if Hosty knew and communicated with the intelligence unit. Revill may not know about Oswald but someone else in the Intelligence Unit could know.

I am reading the book: Deep State in the Heart of Texas: The Texas Connection to the Kennedy Assassination by Richard Bartholomew. There I found a mind-boggling information about Ruth Paine being aware of Oswald's family in 1957:

Quote from the book:

"And perhaps most disturbing of all, as we shall see next, are the implications of Navy Department document which reports that Ruth Paine was requesting information about the family of Lee Oswald in 1957. Schmidt's party was in late February."  [Footnote 215 - leads to Epstein (Legend...) and DiEugenio (Destiny...), however, it is not clear if this footnote refers to Schmidt or to the Navy Department report.]

"Considering the Navy Department report mentioned earlier, however, indicating that Ruth Paine was aware of Lee Oswald in 1957, it must be at least said that this introduction was anticipated. "

I could not find any reference to the Navy Department report allegedly containing the stunning information about Ruth Paine informing about Oswald family in 1957. Does anyone know?

Ed:

I leave your thread proposing that Lee Oswald did not stay at 1026 North  Beckley with you and your conscience as a researcher. People differ in their willingness to accept very improbable events and you clearly have a much lower threshold than I have.  There is no way to progress this thread as there is no solid evidence to add. It is not about rational discussion, it is more about what we are willing to construct from hints and weak data. I took note of all your points, however, I found none of your points convincing enough to reject 1026 North Beckley as Lee Oswald's rooming house. 

I have consulted the book by Jim Bishop: The Day Kennedy Was Shot (Gremercy Book, 1968). The book portrays the chronology of events occurring in the Dallas Police Department after Lee Oswald had been brought in. I have extracted parts referring to the address of his rooming house.

P. 290: Captain Fritz wants to send Rose and Stovall to Irving (//I assume this address was obtained from Roy Truly who had it in Lee Oswald's employee card//). At that moment Sgt. Hill said: "We can save you a trip" he said. "There he is". 

//At this stage police could only have have 602 Elsbeth address because that address was on Lee's library card. //

P. 290: In another office Charles Givens, a Book Depository employee, was staring through the walls of glass and said : "Hey, there's Lee Oswald". A friendly policeman leaned out in the hall where reporters were waiting and said "He's Lee Oswald, a suspect in the Tippit murder".

//If Givens could see Oswald through glass walls, Oswald could see Givens or other Depository employees that were brought in, and there was no reason for Lee Oswald to conceal his identity.//

P. 292: At a door, a policeman whispered to Fritz: "I hear this Oswald has a furnished room on Beckley". 

//It is not known who this policeman was and how did he know.//

P. 300-301: Captain Fritz was questioning Lee Oswald  in the presence of some other officers (Boyd, Simms, FBI agent Bookhout). He asked the name, and Lee Oswald gave his true name. He asked about the location of Lee's employment and Lee described the floors he used to work on. 

"Where would you say you were when President was shot?"

"I was on the first, having my lunch".

"Where were you when the police officer stopped you?"

"On the second floor, having a Coke"

//This is not so much relevant regarding 1026 North Beckley, however, this sequencing of events fits with the scenario I have been trying to develop in a few of my last posts, namely that Lee Oswald left the doorway about 30-35 seconds after the last shot and went to the first and then second floor where he had encountered Officer Baker. This would be the scenario which Bill Kelley and Gil Jesus would perhaps subscribe to as well.//

P. 301:

Captain Fritz: "Where did you go  when you left the work?

"I have a room over on North Beckley".

"Where on Beckley?"

"1026".

"North or South?"

"North or South?" "Yes". "I couldn't say, but it is 1026 Beckley".  //Fritz asked "North or South?" but Lee already told him "North". Some confusion here//

"What's the area look like?"

"Oh, a couple of streets come together at that point, and there is a filling station across from the boarding house---"

The captain nodded: "That's North Beckley".

Captain Fritz excused himself. He went out into the hall and told a couple of detectives to run over to 1026 North Beckley and search a room rented by Lee Harvey Oswald.

"All I did, "Oswald was saying, "was go over to Beckley and change my pants. I got my pistol and went to the pictures".

--------

Bishop's book does not give any relevant details about 1026  North Beckley from the interrogation which involved FBI agent James Hosty. 

Based on the book "Assignment Oswald," Lee Oswald had only confirmed the 1026 North Beckley by saying "Yeah",  and that this information did not perspire for the first time in this interrogation session. It is possible that Hosty had a brief exchange with Fritz just before the interrogation and therefore knew about 1026 North Beckley before the session. Else, how could Hosty know about 1026 North Beckley if not from Fritz?

This is as much or as little I was able to dig out about whether Lee Oswald lived at 1026 North Beckley and whether he told this to Police.

So, did or did not Lee tell the interrogators that he had stayed at 1026 North Beckley?

I still cannot see how Hosty's authentic notes containing Lee Oswald's statements as they went during the interrogation in Hosty's presence could be ignored. The information about 1026 North Beckley, according to "Assignment Oswald" but also according to the authentic sheet with notes (which does contain 1026 NB but not the O.H. Lee information) preceded that which referred to O.H. Lee.

It is all very confusing as there are no tapes or stenographic recordings from interrogations. Yet, please try to answer for yourself the question whether Lee Oswald did say during interrogations that he had stayed at 1026 North Beckley. Hosty's notes clearly support the view that he did, and the rest, at least to me, are conjectures and speculations based on uncertain data such as the crossed "where" in Hosty's notes. While it is useful to discuss the shenanigans surrounding 1026 North Beckley, it would be a stretch to draw a conclusion that Lee Oswald did not live there.

From what I read and studied over past five years, Lee Oswald was framed with the murder of both President Kennedy and Officer Tippit. Some people knew a lot about Lee Oswald and were able to lure him into the situation he ended up in. However, the framing did not occur by inventing things which were not part of Lee's life and which he could easily prove or disprove later on. The main circumstances were in place and the conspirators were familiar with them and adjusted their framing to them. 

So, again: do James Hosty's notes (the "Bart's" notes) contain Lee Oswald's own statement about him living at 1026 North Beckley? 

That particular Hosty's note was not about "where", it was about Lee using O.H.Lee in his rooming house. "Where" would be appropriate in a note specifying the location but it was wrong in the context of using an assumed name O.H. Lee. This was the reason for crossing "where". The note (without "where") reads: "O.H. Lee is how he lived" . It is a brief note wanting to state that Lee Oswald lived under an assumed name O.H. Lee in 1026 North Beckley.

However, the O.L.Lee note is not the critical note I am referring to in the authentic Hosty's notes - the second note from the top on the sheet bearing a DPD inscription on the reversed side.

1 hour ago, Ed LeDoux said:

Hosty wasnt there when this bit supposedly went on with Fritz.

So, did Hosty make it up when jotting down the note about 1026 NB on a sheet of paper he just took from Captain Fritz' desk? I mean the authentic notes which Bart has discovered in Malcolm Blunt's archive, not the segments of Hosty's notes (albeit also handwritten) which are on Mary Ferrell website. In "Assignment Oswald", the note appears to be Lee's repetition or rather confirmation of what he had told Captain Fritz a bit earlier. 

Hosty's notes containing 1026 North Beckley as Lee's advised address is the strongest argument. Many of the points mentioned in this thread is difficult to comprehend after almost 57 years and given the sloppy investigation and confusing testimonies. However, they are what they are - confusions and shortcomings in the police investigation, intentional or non-intentional, and themselves cannot refute Lee's statements. 

If you would wish to question the veracity of the 1026 North Beckley information in James Hosty's authentic notes, this would also disprove the veracity of any other note in that document, e.g. the one on Lee Oswald being on the first floor during the shooting and going out to watch the parade. 

Ed:

James Hosty's authentic notes reveal that Lee Oswald himself told the interrogators about staying at 1026 North Beckley. This helps a lot in orienting in this messy aspect Lee Oswald's whereabouts in Dallas, autumn 1963. 

On 1/29/2020 at 9:47 AM, Steve Thomas said:

Andrej,

Hosty wasn't present during Oswald's first interrogation.

Oswald was brought in for questioning at 2:20.

The police were dispatched to 1026 N. Beckley at 2:40.

The police arrived at Beckley at 3:00.

Hosty entered Fritz's office at 3:15.

I'm not sure why it took the police 20 minutes to get from downtown Dallas to N. Beckley, but that's another story.

Fritz told the Warren Commission that before he went in to talk to Oswald, and officer, whose name he could not remember, stopped him in the hall and told him that Oswald lived on N. Beckley. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm Later in his testimony, he said to the Commission,

"Mr. BALL. Was there anything said about where he lived?
Mr. FRITZ. Where he lived? Right at that time?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. FRITZ. Mr. FRITZ. I am sure I had no way of asking him where he lived but I am not too sure about that--just how quick he told me because he corrected me, I thought he lived in Irving and he told me he didn't live in Irving. He lived on Beckley as the officer had told me outside.

That part puzzles me. What did Fritz mean when he said, "I am sure I had no way of asking him where he lived"?

That doesn't make any sense.

And, if he didn't "have any way of asking Oswald where he lived", how could Oswald have corrected him?

This last line of questioning occurs after Hosty has entered the room, but the police had already been dispatched to Beckley some 35 minutes earlier.

Steve Thomas

Steve:

I agree that the information about Lee Oswald's address  while in Dallas in autumn 1963 is unusually uncertain. It started with the incorrect address next to Lee Oswald's name in Revill's list and continued over the period of Friday afternoon. The question posed in this thread is not about when did the Police first learn about Lee Oswald's room in 1026 North Beckley but rather whether Lee Oswald did or did not stay at 1026 North Beckley.

While Ed did a good job by assembling all the contradictions surrounding Lee Oswald's address in Dallas in autumn 1963, the contradictions themselves do not disprove the fact that Lee Oswald stayed at 1026 North Beckley. The ultimate proof is Lee Oswald's own statement which he conferred to the interrogators during the interrogation session at 3.15 (sorry, I did not know that there was any previous interrogation session, I though the Police just asked Lee Oswald questions as they were moving him around the Police department). Thanks to Malcolm Blunt and Bart Kamp, we have authentic James Hosty's notes from this session. The notes say that Lee Oswald himself told the interrogators about 1026 North Beckley.

Again, I do not know when exactly did Captain Fritz learn about 1026 North Beckley and why this point was so cloudy, however, it is quite safe to assume that Lee Oswald lived at 1026 North Beckley in autumn 1963.

If anyone wants to refute 1026 North Beckley as the address of Lee Oswald's boarding room, please explain the presence of 1026 North Beckley in James Hosty's notes.

Can anyone answer the point raised by Steve about Lee Oswald himself saying during his very first interrogation  that he had lived at 1026 North Beckley . This statement was captured  by FBI agent James Hosty and written by his own hand on a sheet carrying a DPD banner. There are no disputes about the authenticity of Hosty's handwritten notes from the first interrogation. If Lee Oswald told the interrogators the address of his rooming house, it means Oswald did stay there.

The JFK assassination case is plagued by inaccuracies, some honest and some deliberately planted. We as researchers should restrain ourselves from proposing theories which build on the inconsistencies. Nothing in this case is straight, every single detail appears to raise doubts and uncertainty, and it is therefore easy to jump to wrong conclusions.

Rob:

I agree that Lee Oswald was deceived when someone asked him to bring his rifle to the building, possibly before the 22nd November.  It could be that Lee brought the rifle to trade it as it has been argued by Gerry Patrick Hemming in the book "The Oswald Code" by A.J. Weberman. Hemming allegedly offered Lee Oswald double the value of the rifle and asked him the weekend before the assassination to bring the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the Depository on Friday. Lee Oswald apparently had no suspicion about the purchase because he would not even think about the possibility of President's Kennedy assassination. Hemming claimed that Lee Oswald brought his rifle disassembled. This proposition would assume that the rifle was brought to the building on that fateful Friday.

You also correctly pointed out to the possibility of Lee Oswald being lured into a collaboration on a mock assassination attempt. Walt Brown has elaborated on this possibility quite deeply in his excellent book "Treachery in Dallas". Oswald's leftist, pro-Castro and quasi-militant (backyard pictures) profile could have been used already in February-March 1963 when he purchased his rifle and a hand gun via a postal order: "look, a treasonous defector can purchase a rifle at will and flaunt the system" - this already could have been a stunt. (Walker shooting could also be a just a fake assassination attempt.) However, I believe that Lee Oswald knew that the rifle would at some point be traced to him via Hidell-Oswald association, only it would have taken somewhat longer than it did.  However, what he was not ready for was that the President was killed and that he now was made a scapegoat. The point is that Lee was thinking that the stakes were not that high because there would not be any shooting at the President, maybe a shot to the grass or a shot with blank ammunition, which on itself would be serious enough to start investigation and blaming the pro-Cuban organisation Fair Play For Cuba Committee. Moreover, Lee would not be on the sixth floor during the mock shooting, he was free to go out and let himself photographed as this would be his alibi and a plausible denial: "You have my rifle, the rifle was used for a shot that missed, but you know, I am out of it because I was somewhere else at the time of shooting. Somebody has used my rifle and I do not know who." Walt Brown assumed that only one shot was fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano with a blank ammunition, and that shot was basically still within the original "mock assassination" plan.

Lee Oswald's actions after the shooting reveal that he realised very quickly that he has been the patsy and the target. I would not like to bring the Prayer Man saga into this thread, however, I think that the moment of Lee's realisation of how badly he was duped has been captured in Darnell film. There he was (so some people including me believe) standing at the western wall, frozen, looking in an indiscriminate way (while all other doorway occupants except Buell Wesley Frazier were gazing toward Triple Underpass) and thinking what was all this about. It is beyond the scope of this thread to elaborate on Lee Oswald's next steps, however, I think he immediately left the doorway and started to search for his rifle in the storage spaces on the first and second floor, and not finding the rifle there, he was on his way to the upper floors to continue his search. At that moment, when approaching the landing in front of the back stairwell, he heard Officer Baker's and Superintendent Truly's steps and voices, and he realised it was too late. He slipped into the second floor lunchroom using the door facing the office hallway and this was how the second floor lunchroom encounter could have happened.

4 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

Oh no...I've always wondered why he has been resistant to talking to researchers. Even back when Lane was doing his thing, Frazier wouldn't talk to him. If you read the notes from the HSCA investigators, they had quite a time pinning him down and getting him to talk to them. Ducking and dodging them, many times of him not showing up when he was supposed to, postponements, lawyers getting involved... He's been looked at for years as this hapless guy that happened to be in the wrong place, with the wrong person, at the time. He is the only living witness who REALLY knows for sure whether Oswald brought a rifle in a package to work. As a rifle owner and hunter, and being around guns in Texas your whole life,  you know darn well what a rifle in a hard shell case, soft shell case, leather case, canvas case, or wrapped in a freaking brown paper looks like. Oswald didnt have curtain rods, didnt need them, denied the story, and none were found. No 2 foot, thin dime store bag was found in the TSBD. That means one of two things...either Oswald had a rifle in a heavier type brown paper bag and Frazier knew it, lied about it because he didnt want to get pulled into all this, or Oswald didnt have a package or gun at all...PERIOD. It's as simple as that. EITHER WAY, HE'S BEEN LYING FOR 56 YEARS. We are running out of time for the truth!

Rob:

your post hammered it well. The rifle has been always a major issue and the reason for Buell Wesley Frazier's misty descriptions. If there would be no rifle in the Depository which could be linked to Lee Oswald, there would be no way of pinning the killing of the President on Oswald.  Lee Oswald had to come to contact with that rifle in some way and even bring it to the building. Had Buell Wesley Frazier not witnessed Lee Oswald bringing the rifle, Mr Frazier would not even need to mention the long package he and his sister allegedly had seen. The fact that Mr Frazier did mention the package means that he was privy to a critical piece of information regarding how the rifle was brought to the building. 

One possibility, which I have developed in one other thread ("Curtain rods story revisited"), would be that the two lads brought the rifle at some point earlier on a different day. This is what Lee Oswald's statements from his final interrogation suggest. According to the postal inspector Holmes, Lee Oswald told the interrogators that the package that contained his lunch was big (oversized) and that Frazier's description of bringing a long package may have referred to a different occasion. Lee said that the bag contained lunch and was oversized for the volume of his lunch it contained.  Mr Frazier also mentioned to Pat Speer and maybe to other people that Lee could have brought his rifle in pieces before November 22. Thus, Mr Frazier knew that Lee had brought a rifle and that that rifle could have been used in the assassination - we do not know what information the two young lads discussed regarding the rifle.

I do not know and may never know why did Mr Frazier and his sister Linnie, if Lee and Mr Frazier brought the rifle on some previous day, would flag up the long package right then on Friday afternoon or evening. It may be that Mr Frazier reasoned that the rifle would be traced to Paine's garage and if he did not come forward soon, he would be considered to be an accomplice to the crime later. So, he came up with a curtain rod story. Why curtain rods? He worked in the department store before arriving to Irving and given he was a very young and inexperienced man, he could only hang on to something he saw in the department store. I was able to estimate what would be the realistic length of the package - it would be 21 inches. If it contained curtain rods, there would be three thin, hollow telescoping rods for his three windows, each window being 31-32'' wide. It would be a very light package, not a bulky or heavy one. I could not find any statement by Mr Frazier as to how thin or thick or bulky or heavy the package was. Importantly, Linnie Mae Randle described the package as long, having a bulky end and almost touching the ground when Lee walked with it. However, such a long package could not be stuck into armpit and held in the cupped hand. Mrs Randle could afford to say the package would be the kind containing a rifle because she hardly could be considered for anything else than a witness. Buell Wesley Frazier had to distance himself from a long and bulky package so that nobody could say he had to see Lee's rifle because Mr Frazier would be an accomplice, not a witness. Merging the two different descriptions of the package, we got a sort of a fuzzy idea how the package looked like - it was both long and not too long, it was both light-weight and bulky or heavy. 

Lee Oswald and Mr Frazier may have been describing the same package: Lee - it contained my lunch and was too big for the content it carried. Buell Wesley Frazier: it was a paper bag which was possible to carry in the cupped hand and having it stuck in the armpit  which means that this was a 21' package and thin enough since it only contained three curtain rods and I know how curtain rods look like - they are quite thin (1/2') and light-weight.

I listened to the program with interest. Only I could not understand the reasons for proposing a psychological analysis of Lee Oswald - assassin if Lee Oswald was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting. Would it not be more appropriate to determine Lee Oswald's guilt in the first place?