Sandy Larsen

I'd read it was a white Rambler. I just checked and found that deputy sheriff Roger Craig said that the car "Oswald" left Dealey Plaza in was a light-green Rambler station wagon. But the WC changed the color to white. Maybe that's where the confusion arose.

Ditto. IMO another key is Ruby killing Oswald. Rubbing out Oswald was of course part of the cover-up. And who obviously would want to silence him asap when he got himself arrested? The same people who used him up as a patsy, i.e. the people who killed JFK. IMO Oswald was supposed to be already dead, or on the way to his demise in the company of someone besides the DPD. At least part of the cover-up had to have been separate from the assassination plot. We know that because the assassination plot pushed the alleged Mexico City trip and meeting with KGB assassinations agent Valeriy Kostikov (which the CIA informed the WC of), whereas the WC cover-up downplayed it. I see no reason why the assassination conspirators would include any plans beyond what was needed to accomplish their goals. Part of their goals would have been to protect themselves and to direct blame toward their patsy. So, of course the assassination plot included elements of cover-up. The question is, where did the assassination plot end and the WC cover-up begin?

I want to present an alternative to Greg's (and others') theory and have it scrutinized here. First: Ruth Paine helps the Oswalds move from the Elsbeth apartment to the Neely apartment using her white station wagon. Mrs Tobias doesn't see this, but does later see Marina (and Lee?) moving some remaining items using the stroller. Alternative First: Mrs. Tobias sees the Oswald's move using the stroller. The Grays/Brays don't see this, but later they see Ruth Paine visiting in her white station wagon. Not knowing that the Oswalds had already moved in, they believe that Ruth is helping them move in. Then: Lee notices that the power is on and decides to take advantage of that to support his CIA cover, which is that of an unemployed/low-financial-class person. They use very little electricity. Marina is unhappy with the situation and the couple quarrels loudly on occasion. LOOSE ENDS (i.e. the theory doesn't explain the following.) Nobody living at Neely afterward. (Perhaps the apartment is a safe house and Ruth had been instructed to have the Oswalds live there for a spell.) Clydie's assessment of Marina's English speaking skills is too high. (Maybe Gene's theory is better than mine here... that the Oswalds didn't live in the safe house, but imposters made cameo appearances. Or, the imposters lived there, as Greg suggested. But, if so, it's odd that the husband, being employed, didn't open an account with the electric company so that they could use more than minimal electricity.) Other loose ends? Having written the above, I'm most inclined to believe the Impostor-Cameo theory. Which has its own loose end: IMPOSTOR-CAMEO LOOSE ENDS Where did the Oswalds live? Other loose ends?

Sandy, I was going strictly from FBI reports. Had forgotten that Ed had interviewed them a few years ago. The FBI reports don't mention seeing her pushing the stroller and don't say outright that they actually saw them. It more or less leaves you to have to draw that conclusion for yourself. Since it was in the interests of the case against Oswald that it be clearly spelled out that the Oswald's lived there, such lack of specificity struck me as a bit odd. That said, I have no reason to doubt what they told Ed. The issue here for me is that they refer to them as Lee and Marina.... but did they actually know them by those names? I can't imagine any introductions being made. These places were for transients... no one plans on staying long enough to worry about making friends with neighbors. I think it's more likely that they just accept the post-assassination story that it was Lee and Marina... That strikes me as odd as well. Very odd.

Gayle, I think may have got herself confused. The Grays (also listed as Brays) never mentioned seeing her walking the baby. That was Wayne Smith in his chat with RG. The Grays WERE interviewed. But under the name of BRAY. It looks like you misremembered, Greg. Ed LeDoux said the following in 2011: I called Clydie Gray, she is elderly and hard of hearing. She said she worked at Akers(?) Department store, and George B Gray worked for the city as a Garbage man. Doesn't remember the owner of the apts. Didn't recall which church she was attending while at Neely. She remembered the Oswald's living upstairs. Marina used to walk the baby in front of her outside. She saw Lee many times. They were not friendly with them. She did not want to talk much longer and had to hang up... Ed If what Clydie says is true, that blows your perfect record of nobody seeing the Oswalds at Neely. (Other than the Paines and De Mohrenschildt.) Do you see or know a problem with what Clydie says? (BTW, I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I just want to see how good your case is.)

Greg, What is your take on what Gordon Wayne Smith told Richard Gilbride, that he had seen Oswald and Marina at the Neely house a number of times?

If the CIA designed the assassination plan, as I suspect, I'm quite certain they would have stuck with the tried and true concepts of compartmentalization and need-to-know distribution of information. I can see no reason for Ford to know anything, so I don't believe he was told anything. And since I suspect Dulles was involved, I can see no reason for McCone to know anything. And so he didn't. Whether they suspected CIA involvement is a whole other issue.

Thanks Greg and Gene. Greg, I was curious about what you said about the Neely home and did some digging for more info. I found a 2011 thread and a 2013 one. You and Richard Gilbride were bouncing ideas off one another. I'm curious what your current thinking is on the following: 1. The use of 36 kW (if I recall correctly) of electrical power at the Neely property in March 1963. Apparently not billed to Oswald. Off the cuff I'd say it was for safe house usage and being billed to the owner of the property, Mr. George, who is a supicious character given his apparent use of an alias (different set of initials). What do you think? 2. Gordon Wayne Smith, who told Richard Gilbride he had seen Oswald and Marina at the Neely house a number of times. What do you think of that? 3. According to Gale Nix Jackson: George B. Gray and his wife "Clydie" were the Oswalds' downstairs neighbors. Clydie saw Oswald many times, and saw Marina walking the baby in front of the house. Unfortunately Gale's reference for that info links to somebody's PC hard drive, presumably her own (drive C:). I don't believe the Grays were questioned by any authority.

Gene, When you say the guns were shipped that day, do you mean they arrived at their destination? I don't see any significance if they merely shipped on that day. (Or maybe I misunderstand the whole point of your post.)

Jon, Have you ever considered the following: If the purpose of the conspiracy was only to eliminate Kennedy and have a patsy take the blame, then there was no reason to fake a Mexico City trip. Because Oswald's alleged motive had already been well established by his defection to Russia and his pro-Castro activities in New Orleans. So what was the purpose of Oswald's alleged (fake) trip to Mexico City and alleged meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov? Surely it had to have been designed to lay the blame for JFK's murder at Russia's feet. Yet, look at what happened. The coverup artists successfully isolated Lone Nut Oswald as the sole perpetrator of the crime. So, in effect, the coverup conspiracy was at odds with the assassination conspiracy... at least in this one respect. And in this one respect the assassination conspiracy failed. (In asking this, I assume you believe the Mexico episode was faked. I sure do.)

It would be fascinating to see a summary of where the assassination conspiracy ended and the coverup conspiracy began. I think much of that line could be drawn right now, with a little thought. For example, I think it's safe to say that the pre-autopsy surgery was part of the assassination. Not only because there was no time for the coverup artists to come up with it, but also because it was necessary to show that Castro-loving Oswald did the deed.

Greg, I have re-read all the relevant testimony (that I'm aware of), removed the parts that I've concluded were later fabrications (the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter), and compared what's left to your list of nine assertions. It all seems to fit with the possible exception of Baker seeing Oswald inside when he was asking for directions (because this seems unnecessary). As of now I'm using your model for my working theory

Jon, There is evidence that indicates that the PMO was created post-assassination. And that is the fact the when the FBI reported the PMO had been found, they reported the wrong PMO amount. This wrong amount, $12.78, was widely reported in newspapers in articles describing the money order, whereas the PMO really had a face value of $21.45. The $12.78 amount just happened to match the price of the same rifle without the scope. So it appears that there was really no PMO in existence when it was reported to have been found, and the price given out proved to be problematic to conspirators shortly after the announcement. I haven't studied this in detail, so I can't explain exactly what happened. But it looks like the conspirators didn't think the thing through well before the announcement was made. Actually, maybe they DID have a PMO in hand but had to remake it once the problem became apparent. HOWEVER, a fairly reasonable, innocent explanation just came to mind. Perhaps the $21.45 PMO did exist when the FBI announced it had been found. But when they reported it to newspapers, they intentionally gave out the price of the rifle rather than the total price, including shipping. They had gotten this price from a magazine ad, but accidentally picked the price of the rifle without a scope. This needs to be further evaluated. Jim Hargrove posted at least one of the newspaper accounts.

Didn't both Hunt and Liddy later admit there had been a plot to kill Jack Anderson?

I've read various accounts of how the body was wrapped, both at Parkland and Bethesda, and I've never seen a blanket mentioned. But, then, I've never read the WC report. At Parkland: He was wrapped in a sheet, and a separate sheet for his head. The casket was lined with a plastic mattress cover. At Bethesda: - At the first casket entrance at 6:30 PM he was in a body bag. - At the third casket entrance at 8:00 PM he was again wrapped in a sheet, and a separate sheet for his head. Here's a relevant thread: How JFK's body was wrapped.

I think you guys might be taking Holmes's testimony a bit too literally, as if he reported what Oswald said with 100% accuracy. In his interrogation notes, Holmes says "....the policeman had him step aside momentarily . Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building." If that is also taken literally, Holmes has Oswald walking out the front door and not out the docking door, as Greg suggests. That's just one example. In his testimony, he states that after being asked to step aside he "just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." Holmes just has his chronology wrong. Oswald would not have been able to just wander out the door after being told to "step aside". He had gone out to check the noise just prior the arrival of the motorcade. In the 9 points I made, there is only one I would concede possibly never happened - Oswald being the person (or one of the people) asked by Baker for directions up. ----------- I have been thinking about this and studying the evidence of it for 15 years. Sean Murphy was not the first one - nor was I - to suggest Oswald was downstairs the whole time. But no one has come close to the work Sean or myself have put into this. I'm fairly new at this. But by following a couple of Robert's threads, and paying attention only to first/second day statements, within two or three weeks I came to the conclusion that the 2nd floor encounter with Baker never occurred. By reading early statements I thought I'd figured out how the lunchroom encounter was invented, including the removal of Baker from the true story. Then I saw that Biffle article and that messed me up. It brought Baker back into the story. (I assumed that "cop" = Baker.) The thing that really helped in my understanding is when you said that the cop-with-drawn-gun story occurs only when Truly is involved. Anyway thanks for answering my questions. I'm gonna go back and re-read all you've written in this thread, and re-read all the relevant early statements to confirm in my mind that they fit your 9 points. So far, what I remember and have in front of me fits nicely. Though, as you said, Holmes's chronology is off. The 1st FBI report is better in that respect, though less detailed. (Sorry, I don't mean to question what you say. I just am very cautious when accepting new facts.)

Jon, I'm glad you bring up the issue of liability. When Lance Payette was here, his argument against the need for bank stamps was that PMOs are as good as cash. And therefore there was no need for a bank stamp... it would be like stamping a $5 bill. I didn't attempt to argue the point because all I needed to do was produce the FRB regulation for bank stamps on PMOs, and I did that. But now that you bring up the issue of liability, I realize that there is an argument to be made against Lance's claim. Let me explain (to others, because you already know) what would happen if fraud were involve in the cashing of a PMO. But before I can do that I need to provide a couple of regulation details. First, the bank presenting a PMO to an FRB is required to stamp it. In addition, the stamp is supposed to state that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the presenting bank. HOWEVER, the regulation also states that the very act of presenting the item indicates the bank's acceptance of that condition. Second, there is a regulation that is specific to PMO's (not checks or other cash items) that states in effect that if a bank pays the wrong amount to a person, or pays the wrong person, or if fraud occurs, the Post Office will have to deal directly with the presenting bank to resolve it. The FRB will be held harmless. The exception to this rule is where FRB negligence is involved. Okay, now suppose the owner of a PMO fraudulently raises its amount and is thereby paid by the bank an amount greater than what the PMO is worth. Once the problem is discovered, the Post Office will attempt to recover the excess money that it wrongfully paid to the presenting bank. If the PMO is stamped, there will be no dispute... the presenting bank will return the money to the Post Office. If it doesn't, the Post Office will sue the bank and will win. However, if the FRB accepts, processes and pays for such a PMO that is not bank-stamped, the presenting bank could legally walk away, leaving the Post Office with no recourse. If the Post Office sues the presenting bank, it will lose because the bank did not guarantee the PMO's endorsements. But guess what would happen next. The Post Office would sue the FRB for negligence... and would win. And so, in the end the FRB would be left with no recourse. Of course, nobody in the banking industry wants any of this to happen. So banks routinely stamp every item they present to FRBs. If an FRB doesn't check for bank stamps, or accepts items that are not stamped, it does so at its own peril. I'd love to see Lance Payette try to dispute this. It's funny how such an experienced attorney, with his 35 years of successful litigation, missed something so fundamental and simple as this. Thanks Jon for pointing it out.

This scenario doesn't account for the news report(s) that a cop, with his gun drawn, spotted Oswald. Unless that was Barnett with the gun, which I doubt. Of course the news report could have been wrong about the gun. But if so, it's quite a coincidence that the official (fabricated) story also just happened to include that part of the story.

I think you guys might be taking Holmes's testimony a bit too literally, as if he reported what Oswald said with 100% accuracy. In his interrogation notes, Holmes says "....the policeman had him step aside momentarily . Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building." If that is also taken literally, Holmes has Oswald walking out the front door and not out the docking door, as Greg suggests. That's just one example.

Greg, I just read the newspaper account of the first-floor cop-Oswald encounter, over on the Oswald Leaving TSBD thread. But I don't recall any report of Oswald saying the encounter with a cop occurred on the first floor. Can you quote that, or tell me where to find it? From Holmes' testimony. Holmes was the only interrogator in that room not trained in the Reid Interrogation Technique. Because of that, he is the most trust-worthy as far as the alibi goes. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." And he wouldn't tell what happened then. If we think about it a while, this testimony, given by Holmes, actually makes quite a bit of sense. How many people did Baker run into when he went into the TSBD? Two by the elevators, more by the front door, possibly more on the upper floors (I'm sure he would have seen the ladies on the 4th floor, and possibly heard Williams, Norman and Jarman on the 5th floor). Did Baker stick his revolver into the stomachs of anyone beside Oswald? Nope, at least not anyone Baker and Truly told us about. What was so special about Oswald, on the 2nd floor, that made Baker detain him at gun point, until he was identified by Truly as a TSBD employee? OTOH, if Holmes is speaking the truth, what is the only thing Oswald was doing at the front door that not one other TSBD employee was doing? Give up? Simple. Oswald was leaving the building, and THAT simple act would be the only thing that would make Baker want to detain him. That sounds reasonable. Another possibility is that Oswald was the only one on the main floor -- in the closet near the front stairway -- when Baker entered and he thought it was suspicious. (I don't remember the woman's name, but in her statement she said that nobody was on the main floor when she entered from outside.) After reading Holmes's WC testimony and his interrogation notes (thanks Greg!), and the first FBI interrogation report -- none of which mentions an armed Baker -- I was beginning to believe that Baker's encounter with Oswald didn't even involve Baker's gun, and that the gun story was a later fabrication. But then I saw the following news article (in a Sean Murphy post) that was reportedly written on 11/22/63: #1: From the Dallas Morning News, written by Kent Biffle 11/22, published 11/23: The fact that this early news report includes the gun story leads me to believe that it is true. (The "gun" part, that is.) So it seems to me that Baker did stop Oswald, gun drawn, but did so near the front entrance and not the 2nd floor lunchroom. Here is how I think the Baker/Oswald lunchroom story originated: This is from the first FBI report: "Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building." This account is true. At some point it became necessary to move Oswald away from the TSBD Entrance. To accomplish this, a conspirator took the 1st floor Baker/Oswald encounter and conflated it with the true FBI report (above) so that it has Baker witnessing Oswald at the rear of the 2nd floor instead of at the front of the 1st floor. Following is the result of the conflation, with changes in red: "Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. At this time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building." Compare this to the 2nd FBI report, which does have the 2nd floor Oswald/Baker encounter. I've highlighted the fabricated (conflated) part so that this account can be compared to the first, above. "[Oswald] was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room." If you remove the red part from this report, what is left is the true account. (I'm sure there is little, if anything, original here, as I am late to the game. The reason I post it is because the way I explain it might be useful to some readers.)

Greg, I just read the newspaper account of the first-floor cop-Oswald encounter, over on the Oswald Leaving TSBD thread. But I don't recall any report of Oswald saying the encounter with a cop occurred on the first floor. Can you quote that, or tell me where to find it?

Colorlab is another. Here is their price list.

I think what is needed is a motion picture film scanner. But I'm sure they are far too expensive... better to hire a service that does this type of work. LA Scanworks is one in Los Angeles. The founder's LinkIn entry is here. I'm not endorsing this guy. But his service is the type that should do the work, not one that does consumer scanning.