Joe Bauer

8 hours ago, David Lifton said:

My first (and only) telephone interview with Jenkins occurred in late September 1979 (I am doing this from memory).  The main point I would like to make (about Jenkins) is that he didn't remember very much --if anything--that was relevant.  I didn't think of this as being sinister. 

Jenkins just didn't remember. When I had arranged for funding for filmed interviews, I put Jenkins on the list.   I flew to Canyon Lake[s], Texas, and that's where I interviewed Jenkins, on camera, around midnight, at his lakeside residence.

 Just about everything I asked was met with the response that he didn't remember.  His wife, Jackie, was present, and very understanding.  During a brief intermission (pauses that occurred when we were changing film reels --each of which took an 11 minute cartridge) she took me aside and asked (basically): "Why are you treating James this way?"  My response was that I wasn't trying to be impolite, just trying to question him as firmly as possibly, and elicit whatever he remembered. And yet here he was--in effect, answering "I don't remember" ---to just about everything (except his name).  It was only years later, under the "tutelage" (quotes deliberate) of William Law, that his recollections (supposedly) blossomed.

One other matter: during my questionin  seemed to imply that he knew things "weren't right."   I specifically asked him: if that was the case, then why didn't he go to the DOJ, or wrote Robert Kennedy a letter.

IMHO: the whole thing (the Law and Jenkins "recovered memory" show, or however may wish to describe it) results in a totally unreliable version of what happened on the night of 11/22/63, at the Bethesda morgue.  If this were a legal proceeding, and anyone tried to introduce Jenkins' so-called "recollections" this many years "after the fact," they would be laughed out of court.   I say this because it is so obvious that there is a "prior recollection" --the phone record and filmed record that I made establishes that.

All this pains me because I see many well meaning people on the London Forum addressing serious questions to Jenkins, not knowing of this history.  IMHO: the essence of what is going on here is this: I interviewed Paul O'Connor, first by phone, and then on camera.  PKO (I always called him that in my research notes) was a strong witness; and he became the "John Wayne" of the film.   

Then, inJanuary 1981, B.E. was published, and I was on my national book tour, airing the O'Connor footage on numerous occasions. At some point, Jenkins --possibly because of envy of O'Connor (to whom he is distantly related) --and, years later,  possibly egged on (or "stimulated") by Law ) -- "found" his memories.  Voila!.  William law (via Jenkins) was then able to launch his career as a JFK researcher. 

My own reaction to all of this, and particularly, my advice to anyone studying the medical evidence in this case:  Beware, at this late date, of anything coming from Jenkins, via William Law.  Take into account what I have written here, and be skeptical of anything Jenkins now "remembers".  IMHO: These are not reliable recollections; they are some mangled mish-mash of "recovered memory", plus a desire to appear important in history--as important as Paul O'Connor, to whom he is distantly related (and with whom --for whatever reason --he feels rather "competitive").  

I post these remarks with some regret.  I am pleased to see a "new generation" involved in JFK research.  I would advise caution in taking seriously anything that emerges decades later, especially launched under the guidance of a third party. 

 

DSL (3/8/2021)

I have watched many interviews of interesting historical figures ( notorious and not ) conducted by Patrick Bet-David and found them very compelling.

I found his interview of James Jenkins compelling as well, yet I also sensed just enough discrepancies on the part of Jenkins recollections regarding his participation and observations in the Bethesda Naval morgue to consider them with important questions. 

Not the least of which were ones that differed from his fellow Navy corpsman Paul O'Conner's accounts.

Jenkins mentions ( at least in one account) that he kind of thought the brain he was handed ( supposedly JFK's ) seemed smaller than normal. He even states he had at least a fleeting thought that maybe the brain he was handed might not have been JFK's?

Jenkins mentioned a severed brain stem, cut on both sides? As if this was a suspicious anomaly?

Jenkins holds a model brain in his Patrick Bet-David interview and explains what part of JFK's was missing and how much of it was ( a little less than a third ) and says the rest of the brain looked somewhat normal?

In another interview didn't Jenkins mention Humes stating that JFK's brain just fell out of JFK's skull and into his ( Humes's ) hands? Didn't Jenkins also once describe how a brain could turn into mush if it had been internally obliterated by a through and through high powered bullet as JFK's had?

I don't think about or question Jenkin's personal character. Seems fine to me. 

However, he seems much less sure about his recollections than his fellow right there next to JFK's body corpsman Paul O'Conner who was stating his observations ( and never wavering from them or changing them ) for years from way back before Jenkins ever started to share his, Also, at a time when they would have been sharper and easier to recollect imo.

And O'Conner wasn't afraid to share his detailed recollections even under sworn oath!

The JFK brain testimony is all over the map. Humes states he didn't weigh the brain and Jenkins stated neither he nor Boswell did either. Humes didn't even have an answer as to why JFK's brain wasn't weighed. JFK's brain goes missing completely?

O'Conner stated JFK's brains were basically fully gone from the skull all during the observation room autopsy.

JFK's brain, it's handling, study, removal, weighing and storage record is simply so corrupted and even obliterated it renders the official autopsy finding totally useless.

And validates total suspicion of the entire procedure ... in spades.

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I wonder why Beatty took the role. 

Probably because he was such a fan of Bobby Kennedy.

Honestly, I had similar thoughts and a feeling that I can't articulate well that Beatty may have not been the best casting choice for the role?

Maybe too good looking?

Maybe not convincingly weary enough looking after battling alcohol addiction for years previous?

Maybe not as shaken and worried appearing?

Especially during and after he was barely escaping harrowing life and death attempts on his life?  

The rushing Dam release fight to the death, the barely saved airplane exploding incident, the creepy darkened room meeting with his Parallax handler who discovered Beatty wasn't who he claimed he was and one wrong adlibbed answer to his questions could have resulted in immediate death?

In his meetings with Hume Cronin after several of these incidents and when Cronin himself was murdered, Beatty just seemed too casual in sharing them or just getting on afterwards imo. 

Dustin Hoffman would have been waving his arms and wide eyed frantic as he was in "Marathon Man" and "All The President's Men.

Even Redford would have expressed a more scared and concerned demeanor as he was in "Three Days Of The Condor" imo.

Not a major flaw in the entire film but just an idly curious main character casting observation and contemplation.

Wish I had the intellectual chops to discuss the film worthily like McBride and Jim Di.

I just watched it again Friday night.

Ominously thought provoking.

Kind of extreme scene jumping editing at times?

One scene Paula Prentice is hysterically telling Beatty she is going to die, the very next scene is her wrapped in a sheet on the morgue table with a toe tag.

Couldn't help but notice the connection to a Lee Harvey Oswald type patsy plot line.

Wonder if there have actually been companies like the Parallax one in our lifetimes?

The actor who portrayed Austin Tucker ( William Daniels ) played Dustin Hoffman's father in "The Graduate" and the crazy New Jersey suburban family father in "The President's Analyst" and was president of the Screen Actors Guild from 1999 to 2002.

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

This is a real Pandora's Box-- the effect of digital technology on cognitive and perceptual development.

One issue is sensory overload, over-stimulation.  For example, my daughters (in their mid-20s) have difficulty listening to a symphony or opera, or even watching most old movies from the 1950s and 60s, because the pace and editing of scenes is less frenetic than that of most modern films, television shows, and, especially, ads.  

On the flip side, I have difficulty watching modern television ads, (e.g., during the Super Bowl) because of the ultra-rapid barrage of images and sounds.  It's like a video game--too much for me to process in the manner to which I'm accustomed.  So, I rarely watch anything on television.

Agree. Same here. 

I remember back in the 1950's and 60's when a commercial break on a television show advertised "1" product!

Now, they can actually run through 10 to 12 (or even more!)  products during a commercial break.

To me it's dizzying.

I almost always just press the mute button and get up and do something else until my show comes back on.

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Last fall, there was a lot of this logic going on that "my enemies enemy has got to be my friend".  And when the balance of elites starting  abandoning  Trump, there seemed to be this silly thinking that somehow I  should then embrace Trump. I see that as so  personality driven and vacuous of any real ideology, comprehension or sense of functionality. This is another such case in point.

Lindsey Graham on Ted Cruz.

 

“If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you,”

 

I appreciate the sentiment. Though I don't believe it. As I've seen through experience Graham actually won't convict any Republican. So that could never cut it for  embracing Lindsey Graham for me.

 But then, do we take from that, if public approval of Congress is at an all time low, and Congress hates Ted Cruz. I should like Ted Cruz?

 

Check out this story from Al Franken about Ted Cruz that actually happened. This is really funny!

 

OMG!!!!  HA HA HA HA HA !!!!

Funniest thing I have heard since ... I don't even know.

Franken should have fought to keep his Senate seat.

I thought Mark Lane kicked Buckley's articulation arrogant and pretentious butt in that interview/debate.

Lane showed his Buckley matching intellectual chops without the head back, raised eyebrow, looking down the nose, snidely toned manner WFB was known for.

The more Lane deflected Buckley's weakness searching intellectual fencing thrusts with deft parrying and countered with his own two touches to Buckley's one ( the Dreyfus affair for example) the more Lane won over that debate judging audience imo.

In the end, even Buckley made some "touche" concession remark regards Lane's performance...stating "something like " he wouldn't be poorly served having Mark Lane represent him legally?

I can't sleep but about 3 to 4 hours a night (for years now) so when I saw this linked memorial video about Marie Tippit and that it was almost two hours in length, I figured heck ... I'll just keep it running and watch it as long as it held my interest.

I got through over half of it until the older church service person got up to talk about Ms. Tippit and apparently he and everyone else there failed to realize his microphone was shut off! 

More than half of the Marie Tippit church service audio was cut off on that video.

Obviously, as Joseph McBride has mentioned after meeting Ms. Tippit in person, she clearly seemed to be a good, kind, gentle, maternally loving, socially thoughtful and giving, unspoiled and unpretentious person. 

Amazing thru viewing hundreds of photos of her taken over the course of her life, she always seemed to have a kind, gentle, soft and even wise smile and look in her eyes "in every one" save for one or two?

A petite woman, wholesomely attractive without trying to be ( that picture of her with her daughter in their bathing suits when she must have been in her late 50's or early 60's was incredibly attractive for her age ) and she kept her health and fitness her entire long life it seems.

J.D. Tippet was obviously a very lucky man to have found and wedded such a good, kind, loving and moral woman.

I was impressed by her son's love and admiration for her all his life until her passing.

The son did talk about his father's killing. Supposedly by the hand of Lee Harvey Oswald. Only in a way however,  to describe Ms. Tippit's not expressing any animosity toward Oswald or his family ever. She harbored no vengeful or hateful feelings about her husband's killer or killers.

Also her son described Ms. Tippit's great appreciation for the huge world wide reaction to her widowed plight. The time, effort, kind sympathy and as we know massive financial aid giving to her by thousands of people really effected her sincerely.

I wonder if Ms. Tippit never went through rough financial stress after her husband's death due to the huge amount of funds donated to her?

And did she ever remarry?

Thanks for posting this Marie Tippit memorial tribute video JM. I found it warmly touching and interesting.

Seeing Ms. Tippit through this extensive photographic assemblage I got a sense that she truly was a good, kind, gentle, thoughtful, humble, moral and very maternally loving woman.

14 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

"Deep Throat" is a character invented by Alice Mayhew. She was Bernstein &

Woodward's agent for the book ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. After they

turned in their first draft, which didn't contain that character, she suggested

it to them. It provides a convenient composite cover for all of ONI man Woodward's

unacknowledged intelligence sources. He and Bernstein later fingered the

FBI's Mark Felt as "Deep Throat," naming him at a time when he was senile, but he was probably just one of their sources.

Surely true.

On 3/4/2021 at 9:26 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Joe said: Biden's eventual improbable "plurality" only win, made possible because Bloomberg diluted Warren's and Sander's vote counts, which before Bloomberg entered the field were actually ahead of Bidens.

First off, it was not a "plurality", or it would have gone to the second ballot at the convention.

Joe, you're the only person in the world who believes that. Bloomberg never harbored a ghost's hope of taking votes from Warren or Sanders. He's a very ambitious guy whose aim was to take votes from Biden because Biden started out so poorly, he thought he could take over the centrist Democrat vote and skew it to Wall Street and get the nomination.

We've told you that over and over again. Any person on the inside of politics would tell you that, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

* Again, These are just facts. This is no way to be interpreted as an endorsement of Joe Biden.

heh heh

 

 

Kirk, you are correct and I concede I have been in error. Though barely.

Biden's final 2020 primary vote percentage total versus all the other Democratic candidates was 51.63%. 

Biden was behind Sanders, Warren and even Buttigieg in Iowa until South Carolina and then Biden started pulling away with that huge surge from the black voter base which was almost exclusively for him alone ( over 80+% ) over all other candidates.

Biden didn't even campaign ( with meager staff and funding ) in many of the states where he pulled off startling victories. Which tells you other top influence power brokers in those states organized his support there.

Can't help sense that political deals were made behind the scenes between Biden's camp and those state power brokers to swing that kind of one-sided support to Biden despite his not even campaigning in them. Perhaps a promise to choose a black woman as his VP?

Warren and Sanders and others never had a chance with the black vote. 

Even though their working and poverty class economic policy proposals would help black Americans even more than Biden's!

Biden had the black vote completely locked up way before hand, hence he did not even need to campaign in most of the heavy black voting block states.

Regards Bloomberg running primarily because he thought Biden was such a weak Democratic party lead candidate and not because Sanders and Warren were doing well against Biden early in the primaries and Biden was looking so bad in the debates his numbers shrank after two of them...I would like to post a few reported facts and Bloomberg statements ( edited I admit but still quoted ) that dispute that premise imo.

From "The Hill."

Former Vice President Joe Biden won 10 of the 14 states to vote on Super Tuesday, a totally unforeseen turn of events that fundamentally reshapes the Democratic nominating contest and appears to make him the front-runner in the race.

Biden’s campaign was in serious trouble only one week ago.

He was running low on money, had not campaigned or staffed up in the Super Tuesday states and was hunkered down in South Carolina for what many believed to be his last stand.

Now Biden’s victory in South Carolina looks like a turning point in the race.

He also made a clean sweep across the South, where huge turnout from black voters and suburban women propelled him to victories in Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas and Tennessee.

Following Sanders’s thunderous victory in the Nevada caucuses, it appeared he might steamroll competition on Super Tuesday by running up huge margins in California and Texas. There were fears among Sanders’s rivals that he’d build a potentially insurmountable delegate lead.

Now, the former vice president looks unstoppable in the South and in states with large numbers of African American voters, making him the favorite to win the nomination.

California now looks like a firewall of sorts for Sanders.

It could take days or weeks for the final tally to come from the Golden State, but Sanders stands to gain from winning the biggest delegate prize in the country, where 415 delegates are at stake.

The question for Sanders is whether he’ll be able to run up the score — polls taken before Super Tuesday showed him leading by between 17 and 21 points.

At the moment, with about 76 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders has only picked up about 50 delegates on Biden in California. He leads with 33 percent support to Biden’s 24 percent.

The Associated Press called California for Sanders as soon as polls closed, indicating that he’s in line for a clear-cut victory there.

And there are states voting soon that Sanders won in 2016, such as Michigan and Washington, and others where he’ll be expected to do well, such as in Arizona.

Still, Tuesday night raises serious questions about Sanders’s campaign.

The Vermont progressive’s    inability to win over black voters     was fatal for his 2016 primary campaign, and he is struggling just as mightily against Biden this time around. 

Bloomberg went bust

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg ended his campaign on Wednesday and threw his support behind ( weak candidate? ) Biden.

Bringing an end to his quixotic unprecedented spending campaign that relied on his wealth more than anything else.

Bloomberg was on the ballot for the first time on Tuesday night, and the hundreds of millions of dollars ( some say 1 billion ) he spent in just three months did not buy him very much.

Biden’s victories were astonishing in part because of how vastly he was outspent and outmanned by Bloomberg, who entered the race over fears that Biden was a weak front-runner. 

>>> I DISAGREE. <<<

Bloomberg didn't run against Biden. He knew Biden had the huge one-sided black vote already sewn up. Bloomberg wasn't even trying to woo the black voter Biden base.

I don't recall Bloomberg's massive ad and mail campaign attacking or countering Biden. They were much more inferring a difference between him as a so-called corporate economic policy "moderate" and the progressive lean the primaries were taking with Sander's victories and with Warren doing well also.

Biden barely spent time in most of the states that he won. In some of the states, Biden didn’t have campaign offices or staff on the ground, while Bloomberg blanketed the airwaves and had a sophisticated operation with dozens of offices and hundreds of staffers in places like Virginia, which Biden carried by 30 points over Sanders.

Now, Bloomberg appears poised to influence the race in the way many believed he should have from the start — putting his money and muscle behind ... "Biden." 

The weak candidate Biden?

And who will look to further consolidate the centrist vote and ... pull away from Sanders.

Of course!

Leaked Audio Bloomberg Defends Big Banks, Calls Warren ...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics...

In a 2016 audio recording from what is thought to be a private Goldman Sachs event, Bloomberg first can be heard referring to the audience as “my peeps.” 

With Bernie Sanders capturing early state victories and Elizabeth Warren ranking second in a new nationwide poll, Bloomberg will be likely looking to stop the progressive candidates’ momentum in tomorrow’s debate. But this new audio gives Warren new ammunition to, once again, ruthlessly drag him on national television.

Bloomberg's candidacy was not about competing against "weak candidate" Biden. It was about stopping Sanders and Warren

 

Have watched a half dozen short scene clips of the film since last night. I've seen the film once or twice before. Will be watching it in it's entirety again later today.

17 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Prior to the Georgia runoff they (Democrats, including Joe Biden) promised people $2,000 checks if they won. That's why they won. Here it is two months later and nothing and Biden keeps trying to whittle it down and the Senate keeps delaying. Do you think people aren't going to remember this in the midterms? And most developed countries in the world have been taking better care of their people through this than the U.S. 

Yes, I want a more progressive agenda/society and I knew Joe Biden wasn't going to deliver that. I still prefer him to Trump but that doesn't mean he gets a free pass for this, bombing Syria, shitting all over student debt relief, recognizing the coup leader in Venezuela...lots there to criticize.

Agree. 

At one point in a broadcast interview, Biden even promoted the fact that he wasn't like "those guys."

Meaning Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, the new progressives in Congress, etc.

Who were fighting for more stimulus aid, meaningful student debt relief and not letting corporate Wall Street have their way as usual.

Biden wasn't one of those dangerous to the status quo "socialists!"

I was stating Biden's corporate favoring ties way back during the primaries.

I saw a connection between Michael Bloomberg's brief 3 month but unprecedented massive billion dollar presidential primary candidacy run and Biden's eventual improbable "plurality" only win, made possible because Bloomberg diluted Warren's and Sander's vote counts, which before Bloomberg entered the field were actually ahead of Bidens.

At one point, Biden did so poorly in the televised debates, he was 4th in the polls!

That's when Wall Street gazillionaire icon Bloomberg decided to enter the race. Bloomberg is "quoted" as telling his "people" during a Goldman Sachs meetup that Bloomberg considered Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders more dangerous than Donald Trump. His mission in running was to get them out of there.

Biden is a much more safe President for the corporate Wall Street interests.

Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary ( Janet Yellen ) is also Wall Street friendly. Having collected 7 MILLION dollars in speaking fees from corporate America.

Some would say Sturgis was just an inveterate, even trained xxxx, always promoting and planting false stories.

The main points of Sturgis's statement do seem to check out however.

 Did Sturgis get the identity of "Deep Throat" wrong?

Maybe the Mark Felt story isn't true? 

Or, could there have been another "Deep Throat" besides Felt?   That seems quite plausible imo.

12 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

This one is even better because it has audio/visuals and an in-person audience (from 2019):

 

Vince Palamara JFK assassination Secret Service presentation 2019 (BEST OF series/ 6 of 7) - YouTube

 

So enlightening. Comprehensive documentation.

Special notice:

The screen shot blowup of the newspaper article quoting former SS Chief U.K. Baughman in which he states the Texas School Book Depository building would ( should ) have been considered a "key" threat one with it's top floors secured during the passing of JFK's limo underneath.

Especially considering the "two" sharp angle slowing down turns directly underneath those TXSBD building upper floor windows. Several of which were open just at this time.

And, not mentioned, were any police or SS or any other JFK security men placed behind the Elm street grassy knoll pergola and picket fence area that went for several hundred feet and were perfect hiding places for shooters? 

If not, that easy to notice security threat lapse is mind boggling.

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Fighting? Tanden 's been dead for a week. Biden  met with Manchin probably saw it useless. It just wasn't at all a progressive victory for the Dems in the 2020 election. It was the narrowest of margins.

The political reality is if you're a person who wants the biggest stimulus check you can get and a $15 minimum wage for all. Your person in Washington is Nancy Pelosi, believe it or not. If she had her way, you'd probably be $6000 dollars richer by now!  She probably would have cut you a $1500 check starting last May, and every quarter since, or maybe $600 every month. People would have been able to plan much better knowing they would at least  have had that income.

Pelosi was holding out for more in October to try to compensate for the fact that she could only cut one check up to that one point. Trump waved the white flag, abandoned his Republican Party and conceded to his enemy, Pelosi,and came tagging along, even though he never gave a crap about aid for the 6 months prior,  thinking if he could buy votes by  giving people a $2000 check with his name on it, he might be able to salvage the election. But even that was a pipe dream! Pelosi has completely out maneuvered Trump for the last 2 years! He's probably never been emasculated like that by a woman before!

I haven't received my $600 check yet, and was told by the IRS that if I didn't receive it by now, I can deduct from in my 2020 taxes. I don't really need a $1400 check, but I'm sure as hell not going to turn it down after paying taxes all my life.

It's a bifurcated economy and people are either not missing a stitch or financially in horrible shape. Of course, a massive outlay of 1.9 trillion is debt to be paid off in the future, and is saddling those of us who have children with a  enormous debt. Of course, we've have been saying that for years. For those of us who remember 19% interest rates, when we were young, they've done a remarkable job at taming inflation through monetary policy. But can we count on that forever? '

Right on KIRK!

Well said my Berkeley brother.

Unlike you however, and like tens of millions of others in this country my wife and daughter and I "do really need" that $1,400 check.

My daughter and wife lost their benefitted jobs in the middle of last year due to the Covid crisis.

Unemployment is barely enough for us to pay the rent. I have thousands due in medical co-pay bills. Three times now our cars ( mine is a 14 year old junker-other two are 9 years old. ) have needed $1,000+ repair work jobs in the last 7 months.

Trump and his cheapskate Repub minions gave out one $1,200 stimulus help check in the entire 2020 year! Then one dinky $600 check in January?

$1,800 dollars ( even doubled for two resident households ) helped most get through ONE MONTH of financial needs.

You are so right, lower than $75,000 previous year household income Covid job loss citizens should have had monthly help all 12 months.

Many reports in the news now about renters unable to pay their rents and who owe up to or beyond $10,000 just for that expense! Some even $20,000!

Trump left tens of millions of real provable job and income lost Americans to twist in the Covid stressed wind.

I don't know how many of them are even making it.

Oakley also suggested that when we are stuck on a problem in learning, that it is helpful to "do something completely different for awhile and then come back" to the problem, because during that time, the brain is "working away in the background and making these connections" which we are unaware of, but help to solve issues. 

I find I have to do this stepping back and looking at everything JFK/Oswald related event with a new perspective every couple of years.  It seems to present things in a more reasonable or at least refreshed light imo.

Excuse the black background, I couldn't copy the text and lose it for some reason.

I do want to share again about stepping back now and then and looking at the most basic, pretty much consensus accepted facts we know about the Oswald case with a simpler, more broad or just different take to see if maybe the answer key is more forest through the trees obvious than one might think? 

Oswald is the ultimate truth hidden puzzle. Still a confounding conundrum after 58 years!

Mailer took him on and felt he had him figured. Many others too. Vincent Bugliosi created the world's heaviest literary door stop in his "Oswald alone did it" tome.

My own study of Oswald and his doings in his short 24 year long life ( as non-credible layman as this has been ) has left me just as unsure about his guilt in the JFK affair as ever. Like thousands of others interested in Oswald you just get exhausted trying to get a handle on him, his actions and his involvement in the "Big Event."

Often I just contemplate the simplist of questions regarding LHO.

The most obvious and head shaking incongruities.

Why get involved in extremely inciting political activity in New Orleans? Why do this so publicly? Newspaper coverage, filmed by others, radio appearances? You don't even have a job and your family desperately needs financial help?

Why take the most guilt incriminating photos one could ever imagine with the backyard photos and make and keep copies and even hand them out?

Why so much planning with the General Walker shooting like casing his home, making maps and drawings, probably observing Walker's night time study room presence, finding a prearranged nightime shooting location, getting his rifle there unnoticed and burying it in a safe location afterwards, coordinating his travel to Walker's home and an escape plan and even giving Marina a "if I am caught" note to help her and his daughter avoid any associative guilt problems?

Yet, Oswald has hardly any similar pre-planning with his next hit assignment of the "President of the United States" in broad daylight with hundreds of bystanders just below him and dozens of armed security too? Was this a suicide mission?

Oswald's set up, execution and escape plan with this 1000X more important hit is to simply carry his gun in with witness Buell Frazier seeing it wrapped up in his arm, build a wall of boxes around him on the 6th floor and his window perch in his spare work down time, make two bullseye hits on JFK in 6 seconds, toss his 3 times fired rifle behind some boxes, run down the stairs to stop in the lunch room to buy a machine dropped soda pop, then, casually walk down to the first floor entrance, dispurse phone location advice to reporter Robert McNeil and then saunter ( not run ) a few blocks to get on a city bus, then get off and hail a cab ( with first allowing another lady the first cab ride in his southern gentleman manner ) and then simply riding back to his Beckley room and from there ... It's all just incongruously crazy!

Oswald was relatively intelligent. He was tested and placed in a marine job assignment that took more mental ability than truck driver, cook, parachute rigger, MP, etc..  Air Flight control assignment requires some abstract mental acuity ability.

Oswald learned the Russian language to debateable degrees..."on his own!"

Try that challenge.

Oswald arranged and carried out world travel itineraries. Coordinated boat, train and plane travel and through a complicated set of geographic and political obstacles. He did more world travel than most 24 year old American men even though much of this was military related.

He read constantly. 

How then could studying for and acquiring a simple drivers license and learning to drive a car elude such a person? Not knowing or seemingly wanting to learn how to drive a car crippled Oswald in so many ways here in the states, especially in his role of husband and father?

Oswald did exhibit a fair amount of normal young man behavior socially besides some rough passages in his adolescent New York City time.

He joined the junior Civil Air Patrol. He joined the Marines.

He messed around with club girls in Japan. He got the clap or some other VD. He got into a couple fist fights as so many Marine enlisted men do.

In Oswald's Russia time diary he mentions eyeing at least a few Russian girls starting from his first arrival there and in Minsk it sounds as if he probably even scored and wasn't a virgin when he met Marina.  He went to dances and hoofed it. Maybe not as disco savvy as John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" but he at least got out there and tried.

Oswald got along normally with Marina it seems in most ways until they came to America. He truly loved and doted on his daughter Junie from her birth and he reportedly liked and even playfully engaged with other children in a normal way when he was around them.

LHO wore his wedding and Marine Corps rings to the end.

My point is Oswald wasn't your typical socially frustrated mentally deranged killer type. Texas U. Tower nut case Whitman, delusional Mark Chapman, Bush family friend mental case John Hinkley, acid burnout Manson brainwashed Squeaky Fromme, frustrated Palestinian rage Sirhan Sirhan, dark apartment poster living Arthur Bremmer, or even alcoholic jealous rage filled Mac Wallace.

Oswald was far from fitting of the mentally insane, socially frustrated, drug or alcohol addled or even suicidal murderer mold.

He was noticeably withdrawn, even surly and disagreeable to some to certain degrees. 

But not in an overtly unpredictable outburst or threatening sense way imo.

He didn't drink and lose control in public. He took Marina and Junie to parks, shopping, he listened to classical music. He was frugal and didn't even indulge in overeating. Those are self-control, self-disciplined traits.

This social and personality reality about Oswald so contradicts his reported crazy, risky Walker, JFK and Tippit actions from a mental state perspective it just adds to the seemingly unsolvable Oswald puzzle. 

When you throw in Judyth Vary Baker and her exact same O'Reilly Coffee cover job hiring day as Oswald... the Oswald puzzle game really gets going. Where's my valium.

It was to me a surprisingly interesting aspect to the events of 11,22,1963 how much both Mrs. Tippit and Marina Oswald received in donated monies from tens of thousands of Americans sympathetic to their shared brutally murdered husband widowed plights.

Marina Oswald more so than Mrs. Tippit, obviously because of the widespread hate for Lee Harvey Oswald, generated in great part by the Dallas PD and Dallas DA who both publicly proclaimed Lee Oswald as the lone gunman guilty party in JFK's and Tippit's murders within just hours of their occurrence.

Dallas homicide Captain Will Fritz loudly proclaiming to a packed crowd of national and even international newsmen "This case is cinched!" We have our man.

Dallas D.A. Henry Wade when asked in front of a nationally broadcast news conference whether he felt Oswald was the guilty party said:

"I would say that without any doubt he's the killer - the law says beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty which I - there's no question that he was the killer of President Kennedy."

In today's dollars Mrs. Tippit received well over 1 million dollars, Marina Oswald less but still in the hundreds of thousands.

Marie Tippit and Marina Oswald came from backgrounds worlds apart, yet those who donated funds to them obviously chose to see them only in the view of widowed mothers with children / innocent victims of circumstances beyond their control.

I was inspired by that widespread humanitarian effort ( and in Marina Oswald's case a non-judgmental caring donation one) expressed by tens of thousands of Americans, many only able to send a few dollars. It reminded me that that kind of compassion and caring is truly a real trait of our society along with less than admirable others.

I always wondered about Mrs. Tippit's true life relationship with her husband J.D. Tippit. Was their marriage stressed? 

I wonder too whether J.D. Tippit was of a similar race sentiment as many if not most of his Dallas PD brethren. Did J.D. Tippit look upon JFK as most segregationist did at that time ... with vile hatred? Or, maybe he just wasn't of that more extreme view?

1 hour ago, Karl Hilliard said:

Many witnesses stated that the last shot [the fatal one] was a pa-pow sound. I believe that JFK was hit twice in the head simultaneously. One shot in back of the head with a forward motion............. and instantly, a shot from behind that fence on the grassy knoll.

Egads ...that's a lot of blood and brain matter exploding out of JFK's obliterated skull.

Looks like a bulls-eye hit on a watermelon.

I've seen You Tube video film of large game animals being hit in the head by rifle bullets more potent than the Carcano and can't recall seeing their skulls being exploded to that degree. Yes, human skull bone is less thick than many game animals...but still?  

Notice SS agent limo driver Bill Greer is looking "straight back" at JFK the second his head explodes?

Greer testified differently to the WC regards turning his head fully back to see the head shot.

4 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Joe Bauer, the real question isn't which ONE missed, lol! There appears to be many misses that day. Only one of these misses however would be the one that caused a piece of concrete or something to cause the cut on Tague's cheek. So I get what you are asking, lol! I've seen so many documentaries and YouTube videos and read so many articles and books on the assassination I sometimes can't remember exactly where I've heard or read something but I remember someone once saying of the assassination (possibly after talking about the supposed conversation that Dan Marvin overhears with the guy saying things went really well in Dallas) that no, things didn't go well......it was a sloppy mishandled assassination and coverup. Things went wrong. They had to improvise and adjust the plan on the fly. But the memorable thing I remember this person saying was that there were almost as many shots that completely missed the limo as there were hits to Kennedy (and inadvertently I suppose Connally).

So JF, do you assign any credibility to Colonel Dan Marvin?

If so why? If not, why? 

Also, do you have any thoughts on what created the indentation in the chrome windshield frame? It was round, fingertip deep and lifted all the metal around it 5 inches across and 3 inches high.

Every witness claimed they heard at least three shots.

The question is, which one missed?

The first ... second ... third?

Which one wounded James Tague?

Since the bullet that supposedly went through JFK's back and neck and then through John Connally was recovered almost intact, the bullet fragments found on the seat and floor and the fragment that reportedly made the significant dent in the chrome windshield frame had to have been made by the bullet that obliterated JFK's skull and brain...correct?

Proving which of the three shots missed would really help clarify the time frame of the shooting. And which could either bolster the premise of Oswald being able to get off the three shots by himself...or not.

Yes, eye/ear witness testimony is all over the place in this case. However, the sequence of the last two shots being very close together seems such a consensus above all others by a broad margin, I would reason that this observation is pretty valid.

On 2/11/2021 at 3:39 PM, Pete Mellor said:

Transcription of presentation given by Bethesda witness Jim Jenkins with researcher William Law, given at the ‘November in Dallas’ ‘JFK Lancer’ conference at the Adolphus Hotel on Friday 22nd  November  2013. 

 

J.J.:- The sheets from the head were on the floor and my impression was I had to clean that up.  It was picked up along with the sheets that were removed from the torso and placed in the linen room, which was a small room off of the morgue.  The examination of the head started as a precursor to Dr.Finck arriving.  When I asked who Dr.Finck was I was told that he was a specialist in war, I mean in war field wounds. 

At that point in time we proceeded with the autopsy.  Dr.Humes was at the end along with Dr.Finck, Dr.Humes stood on the left side of the body, Dr.Finck was on the right side and I was at Dr.Finck’s right shoulder and at the shoulder of the president’s body and Dr.Boswell was on the other side opposite of me.  When they began to examine the body Dr.Finck and Dr.Humes who were right here with me and as I was observing them, there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it.  There was a discussion between Dr.Finck and Dr.Humes as to a grey area that actually surrounded the wound and there was speculation by Dr.Finck that maybe that was lead from a bullet.  After that there, it was not really probed or much of a discussion continued after that because at that point in time there was a discussion with Dr.Humes and Admiral Burkley, and that exchange was pretty much the norm for the rest of the night.  Dr.Humes would go to Dr.Burkley because Dr.Burkley would call him over and they would discuss and he would come back and he and Dr.Finck would look at other aspects of the head wounds. 

About the same time Dr.Boswell and I started the autopsy on the torso.  We made the usual autopsy cuts, ours was little different, we went from one shoulder to the other shoulder in a single U shaped incision and we moved this flap, it was caused back up over the face, took the ribcage and then we removed the organs intact.  We did that by tying off the major arteries, severing the trach and the oesophagus and lifting it all out.  We placed it on a cutting board, the cutting board was placed over the chest area, or slightly down toward the mid-section.  The cutting board was pretty much a corp type board with a scale that was mounted on the corner of it.  As Dr.Boswell dissected out the organs as whole organs,  he weighed them and he gave me the weights.  The weights are what you see (referring to projected slide) at the top that’s where the results were added.  Again….to….is significant because that is not my handwriting.  My handwriting doesn’t look that nice.  At that time, you know, we finished the organs, the heart was…at Bethesda we did autopsies a little different.  We did the sources to heart like normal protocols, in other places where I’ve done autopsies we actually went in to the ventricles and we opened up so we could see the walls and so forth and not have to see them in sections.  The heart was examined in that manner.  The intestinal tract, both large and small intestines were taken out and taken to the deep sink.  Now normally in other autopsies, that was my job.  We would open up the intestinal tract, lay it open, clean it with the water and then we would examine it for lesions and things of that nature.  Now, with the residents, we cleaned the intestines.  Paul (referring to O’Conner) and I according to which of us got the task when we were there and the rest would come and check for lesions, tumours, particular things of that nature.  That was done by Dr.Boswell.  He did that personally.  Then there were some controversies about whether to take the testicles or not, and they were taken.  I’m not sure what the controversy was and so forth but the kidneys were also examined.  Due to the fact, I’ve heard, I’m not sure, I didn’t see any of the final results from these organs, just the gross (weight) at the autopsy, but I think they were asked because there was a possibility if there was Addison’s disease involved. 

Moving on.  During the time that we were dissecting and weighing the organs, Dr.Humes was probing the back wound.  On this same sheet that was approximately where the wound was placed and that’s where I remember it being, in the back.  But the significance of this is I watched the operation of Dr.Humes probing that wound with his finger.  He probed it to the depth of that wound with his finger.  I could see the impression on the pleural, on the back of the pleural cavity, the chest cavity, but it never entered the chest cavity.  He and Dr.Finck took a sound.  A sound is for, many of you probably know what a sound is, but I suggest they probably used a sound, because a sound is rounded. (?) Because one of the things that they expressed was the fact that we don’t want to create an entry into the pleural cavity if there’s none there.  Now, moving on to the lungs, this is related to the lungs.  On the right top of the middle lobe, almost….it’s a junction.  The lung has three lobes.  There was a blue, a blueish type of indentation probably about the size of your thumb.  Speculation was that that was caused by the bullet that entered at the point in the back.  I know that this is one of the major controversial points related to the neck wound.  At the point that the back wound is, it is probably, just roughly guessin’, ten, maybe a little more, a little less, centimetres below the wound in the throat.  At no time in the autopsy did we do any examination of the throat trach.  We were told that’s what it was, that it was a trach.  Now, there were questions about it because of how large it was.  It was I think on the face sheet it says it was 6.5cm., that’s a little over 2 inches.  The other thing was that this trach was done, it was horizontal in relation to the neck.  Most trachs were much smaller and in those days they were done in the vertical.  The description of the wound here as you see it was vastly different from what we got from Parkland, as was a lot of other information we got later. 

W.L.:- Have you ever seen a trach like that, that big? 

J.J.:- No.  I’ve never seen a trach that way and I’ve never seen one that large, because the old metal tracheotomy tubes were, my guess would be probably 5mm., 3 to 8mm., something like that.  We never really questioned it.  The only thing we did was when the flap was up, and the flap was up over the face Dr.Boswell kinda lifted the flap and looked up and he stuck his fingers in there.  No comment.  No nothin’ at that point in time, but that wound was never probed.  It was never examined for entry or exit.  Which brings another controversial point.  We did multiple X-rays, before we actually proceeded with the autopsy itself. 

W.L.:- Jim, when you say multiple, take a guess and tell us how many X-rays would you estimate you took? 

J.J.:- I think Custer (referring to Jerrol Custer) and I took, we took the original AP (anteroposterior) and laterals. We took multiple, I would say probably for every one we took, we did five repeats at the request, my impression was, at the request of the gallery.  Nothing seemed to be pleasing the people in the gallery.  Actually, nothing being done in the autopsy seemed to be pleasing to the people in the gallery.  We were directed again, at one time we were directed away from the wound in the neck because the reason we were given was that it would have been too….if we had actually examined it, we would have had to open it into the trach and that would have been too hard for the mortician to conceal it. 

W.L.:- To find the path of the bullet would you need to do that? 

J.J.:- Yes!  Yes you would have to actually do the incisions involved and follow the path in there.  At least you would have probed it to see where it went. 

 

The other thing with the X-rays, we were finding no bullet fragments. 

 

We found no bullet fragments that were in the body itself.  Now, the bullet fragments that people relate to were bullet fragments that were brought in after the autopsy was underway and given to us in a small tie top bag. 

 

It’s similar to a zip lock except it has a tie that runs across the top and is folded over and that type of thing, that was placed on the autopsy table by the right ear. 

 

W.L.:- Can you estimate the time that you remember that? 

J.J.:- No. 

That’s always been a question that I’ve had about time.  It was a military morgue so it had a huge clock, but the clock was at the other end of the morgue over a huge order plate.  My attention was such that I had to be aware of the needs of the pathologist, that was my purpose for being there. So my attention was focussed on that table, on whatever they asked for help with.   At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound.  In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr.Boswell to the gallery.  He made a statement, or asked a question really, “was there any surgery done on the head at Parkland?” 

 

What he was referring to is that there seemed to be an incision at one of the points on the large incision that radiated out toward the middle suture, and at that point in time I just looked at it as maybe something he was curious about and so forth, but then I realised that later on when the brain was removed, that incision made it possible for the wound to be spread, where we did not have to do the skull cap.  We did the skull cap. 

If you didn't have to do the skull cap, why did you do this?

 

Normally the way we took the brain out of the cranium, we made an incision from this ear to this ear across.  We spread the scalp back and forward and we took a saw and made a notch at the front of the skull to orientate us when we replaced it, and we took the whole skull cap off and then we removed the brain.  At that time we always attempted to remove the brain intact with the spinal cord.  Sometimes it worked…very rarely did it work.  Most of the time the spinal cord was torn off and we had to go in from the interior of the body.  At autopsy we removed parts of the spinal cord off the spinal column and took that out.  We did not have to do that with the President’s body.  Actually I don’t really remember that we ever removed the cord itself, just the brain. 

 

W.L.:- Jim, let’s stop you for a minute because this is where the big controversy comes in.  Paul O’Conner is well known, famous for saying that when he saw the head, there was no brain, that it had been blown out.  Yet when we were in New Orleans 15 years ago you told me….you have to understand that Jim did not know me from Adam, and when I finally worked up the courage to be able to come and see him, he agreed.  I didn’t know whether he was going to give me ten minutes or fifteen minutes.  You have to understand that unlike Paul O’Conner, who was a wonderful gregarious person with a great sense of humour, he would tell you anything you wanted to know.  Jim doesn’t do this stuff so that’s why we’re lucky to have him tonight.   He just doesn’t involve himself.  He’s never sought the limelight in this thing.  Anybody that ever wanted to talk to him, they’ve always had to hunt him down and find him, if they were lucky enough to get to talk to him.  So I was very lucky to be in a room, sitting with him asking these questions, and I could tell the look on his face, it was reluctant.  He was reluctant to do it, but he did it and at one point I’m sitting there and Jim said,

“one of the doctors made an exclamatory statement, and he was looking right at me when he said, I think what he said o.k., was meaning the brain,

... ‘the damn thing fell out in my hand.’” ... 

I asked Jim what does that mean to you?  Tell ‘em what you said to me. 

 

J.J.:- O.k.  That statement was made by Dr.Humes. 

 

To remember that Humes and Finck were actually the people who were working with the head, the head wounds.  That was the statement.  As I said before it was a statement that kinda surprised me, but as they took the brain out he handed it to Dr.Boswell who was actually across the table from me.  Since I had been assisting with Dr.Boswell, I was the only corpsman at that point in time that was working with Dr.Boswell.  I followed Dr.Boswell to the bucket of formalin where we infused the brain. 

 

I told William, I gave him some of the impressions that I had of the brain when I first saw it. 

My first impression was, the damage to the brain does not correlate with the extensive damage to the skull. 

 

What I mean with that was the right interior portion of the brain was damaged and there was some tissue missing.  The brain due to the trauma apparently was in that area was kinda gelatinous and that pretty much stands to reason, because when you traumatise the brain, it’s not like traumatising a muscle, or something like that, where you get bruising and so forth.  The brain actually has a large amount of fluid in so it kinda becomes mushy and gelatinous,  ... that was what I saw. 

 

The other thing, I didn’t think that the brain was large enough. !!!

 

I had an impression that it was smaller than what it should be coming out of the cavity that it came out of.  Now these were just impressions on my part.  That was a first sight, first impression type thing.  Dr.Boswell carried the brain to our bucket where we infused the brain.  How we did it is important, because our normal method was we had a stainless steel bucket, we filled the bucket approximately half full of formalin.  We had created a gauze sling that went over the top of the bucket.  We laid the brain upside down in that sling.  We had a two needle apparatus that came from a supply of formalin that was up on the top of the cabinets.  What we did with it was, we took those needles, we infused the brains through the two internal carotids at the base of the brain.   Those carotids were retracted and it was extremely difficult, and as a matter of fact we had one of the residents come in, which was the chief resident, because Dr.Boswell and Dr.Humes did not do this menial type thing of placing these suture needles in and so forth.  So what we did was, we infused the brain and it was extremely difficult because of the condition of the carotids. 

W.L.:- So what does that mean to you Jim? 

J.J.:- Well, in my experience when vessels are severed for a period of time they retract, especially arteries, because of the way they’re constructed, and over a period of time it’s almost like they begin to close off themselves. 

 

The other thing I noticed was the brain stem, where the brain stem was cut to remove it from the cranium, the brain stem looked like it had been cut from two different sides, from each side met in the middle. 

I can relate that because if you’ve ever tried to cut something from the right side and go back and cut it from the left side, it never, almost invariably never is the same level, and this is what the brain stem looked like.  You know, I’ve been asked many times about this,

‘did I think that the brain had been removed prior to the autopsy?’ 

Taking into consideration the abnormal things that I just described….I feel like it was.  !!!

 

 

James Curtis Jenkins c1963. 

 

 

 

 

Barbara Oakley, Professor of Engineering at Oakland University joined Connie Willis (info) in the first half to discuss learning techniques to help master any material. She builds on insights from neuroscience and cognitive psychology for a crash course to improve your ability to learn, no matter what the subject is. Oakley recalled that the idea for the course was developed with Salk Institute neuroscientist Dr. Terrence Sejnowski. Another inspiration, strangely enough, came from the worst professor Oakley ever had, who made learning so tortuous that she decided to do the opposite of anything he suggested. The professor said he never watched television, so Oakley began watching more TV, and discovered that "there’s all sorts of neural tricks that really good video editors use, that you can use to learn," such as perceived proximity to the viewer.

Oakley continued with the observation that the brain learns in two ways: declarative (hearing or experiencing something) and procedural, meaning repetition of facts or techniques. She said that there has been a decline in average IQ in the last few decades (after centuries of average intelligence increase) and believes it is due to the reluctance of educators to impose repetition on students. She compared this to "limping along on one leg to move forward." Oakley also suggested that when we are stuck on a problem in learning, that it is helpful to "do something completely different for awhile and then come back" to the problem, because during that time, the brain is "working away in the background and making these connections" which we are unaware of, but help to solve issues. She also emphasized that being flexible and open to new knowledge and facts helps immensely in the learning process.

I find I have to do this stepping back and looking at everything JFK/Oswald related event with a new perspective every couple of years.  It seems to present things in a more reasonable light imo.

On 2/24/2021 at 5:24 PM, Robin Finn said:

Outline for Phillips' book can be viewed here as a part of the Harold Weisberg collection.

A few brief thoughts about certain story content aspects in the Phillip's "Amlash Legacy" book outline.

The mention of the $800,000 and the way it was acquired and then kept and used brings to mind the true life reality of huge chunks of hidden source under-cover cash so often used in covert spy programs and by those involved in these.

E. Howard Hunt spent money way beyond his normal pay grade amounts.

At one point he and his family lived the country club life, large tract estate type private home digs, kids in very expensive private schools (maybe even nannies?) drove big flashy Cadillacs, smoked the finest cigars, dining in fine restaurants, probably affairs while away in other countries.

A real James Bond in this high class lifestyle way.

All on his civil service salary? No way. 

And I don't think Hunt's spy novel income was that lucrative...was it?

Nixon's slush fund cash. A million in cash needed? No problem.

Iran Contra...drug cash millions flowed through or in the least "around" the likes of Oliver North.

Didn't we send huge pallets of cash ( billions ) to the Middle East to pay off whoever we needed to work with us outside of official channels?

It's simple human nature that large amounts of all that cash gets siphoned off all the time in that world. Phillip's "Amlash Legacy" recounts a similar side story plot line.

Hunt demanded large chunks of cash from the Nixon team when he was being tried for Watergate and was willing to push this demand as far as he could even with blackmail threats. He just couldn't bear his family falling into a working class income poverty lifestyle after providing them with the good life for many years imo.

My larger point being the role of huge amounts of unaccounted for cash being a part of the world of covert action spycraft and the skimming of this in certain specific cases, probably in Hunt's case imo.

Poor Oswald sure didn't benefit much from this perk if he was indeed a part of that world.

Baby June had to sleep in an open suitcase because he and Marina could not even afford a crib? They lived in one low rent apartment after another. Marina had to be helped constantly by better off others for basics like food, housing, clothes, even bad teeth and pre-natal care.

Oswald couldn't provide his family with much of these basic needs with a car being a beyond expectation dream luxury. 

 Even his choice of guns ( the Carcano anyway ) were the cheapest ones anyone could afford. BB guns probably cost as much.

Oswald had a wife and child to support. He barely provided for them his entire time before 11,22,1963.  He hated that others had to help his pregnant wife and baby with these basic needs.

Agent Oswald ? Ha.

On a Texas School Book Depository minimum wage salary? Or even unemployment in New Orleans...where he picked up a few extra bucks handing out FPFC leaflets?

And where did less than minimum wage unemployment income collecting Oswald get even the few extra bucks to hire some helpers in his leaflet passing job?

If Oswald cracked...it wouldn't be illogical to think he did so after living a life so financially deprived, struggling and humiliating, he couldn't even provide his wife and beloved daughters the barest of basics and knew he had lost them to others who could?

Just some quirky thoughts related to Phillip's "Amlash Legacy" and the story line of huge amounts of unregistered suit case cash and it's high intrigue context in the romantic ( but also real ) spy world life imo.

Hence, E. Howard Hunt's country gentleman/ Bond type spending habits.