Jason Ward

Paul, I think the evidence Hosty was tracking the Oswalds no later than early 1963 is strong: Hosty by official report finds the Oswalds at both Neely St and Eslbeth St apartments. He lets them go, he says, for fear of disturbing their marriage. Perhaps more importantly than all this is that on 22NOV63 the DPD in official reports lists Oswald address as Elsbeth. There is only one place they could have found this address - from Hosty. ...Yet Hosty himself knew on 22NOV63 that Oswald didn't live at Elsbeth, so doesn't this imply that on 22NOV63 the DPD put Oswald's address on Elsbeth based on their Spring 1963 knowledge of Oswald's activities???? Activities shared with the DPD by Hosty? (and potentially by the Vorshinins via Hosty?) I think sometimes we get too caught up in trying to say whether so-and-so is lying or telling the truth. Often all we really need to look at is what they want us to believe. Isn't the assassination a play, meant to tell us a story and not reality? These are actors who wish to convey a fictional story. SO...perhaps it doesn't matter so much whether LHO was telling the truth in his March-April letter to the FPCC about handing out leaflets in Dallas. Maybe the more revealing point is that this is what Oswald wants us to believe, it's what he wants the FPCC to believe, it's probably what he wants the FBI to believe, and, eventually, it's what Harkness and Curry at the DPD want us to believe. Why does the DPD have Oswald's address on Elsbeth on 22NOV63? What is the source and date of this information about Oswald's Elsbeth apartment? source: Dallas Municipal Archives JFK Collection, BOX 5, Folder 2 <<<http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1409-001.gif>>>

Hi Paul, Unfortunately for you and the reading audience I'm in a slow season at work so I've got more time again to pester you and Gen. Walker. I think I see a small issue here in the above snippet I took from your earlier post. In my read of FBI number 3 man Alan Belmont's Warren Commission testimony, Belmont isn't necessarily saying that Hosty made an allegation of Oswald's FPCC activity in Dallas, is he? Isn't he potentially saying that there was a general allegation of Oswald's FPCC activity in Dallas in the spring of 1963, without mentioning the specific source of this allegation? I think Hosty is such a nervous wreck about his connection to Oswald that he would never allege any FPCC activity in Dallas from Oswald or anyone else. Hosty's already in hot water about Oswald and tries to pull a Jedi mind-trick on the WC and history by giving us a load of bureaucratic double-talk in testimony, as he implicitly argues that FBI administrative procedures pulled Oswald from under his remit for much of 1963. In Hosty's narration, the Oswald file is in administrative limbo between New Orleans and Dallas such that he cannot possibly be held accountable for Oswald's actions. I think Belmont is referring to either an informant's allegation or the FBI mail intercept of the FPCC in New York that found Oswald's letter where he self-identifies as a FPCC Dallas agitator in the Spring of 1963, right? Belmont isn't implying that Hosty made the allegation of Oswald's FPCC activity in Dallas, agree? It all goes back to Oswald's letter... Jason 1. Oswald in his hyper-communist persona tells the FPCC he's working in Dallas 2. Is David Ferrie handing out leaflets on Canal St around he same time as Oswald's spring 1963 letter? According to one of Ferrie's Civil Air Patrol cadets who also knew Oswald, George Boesch: SOURCES 1 CD 107 2 HSCA Report Vol 9, p 113

Hi Paul, I personally don't like building a CT so we don't really have to pursue this much, unless I happen to come up with more evidence. I will look at officer Hill later tonight or tomorrow, in keeping with the plan to focus on the cops first. I think I will just signpost this as one of the places where I think there is a fork in the road of uncertainty. Here's my point of contention: Walker is bat-sh*t crazy if he's making up his claim that the DPD knew about Oswald on 10APR63 without one scintilla of evidence to back him up on this claim. I don't think he's bat-sh*t crazy. This doesn't mean that your CT is disturbed IMO. There's planted, modified, or ignored evidence everywhere the DPD is in this story. Oswald could have gone out hunting General Walker that night - and the DPD could still have made up or pre-fabricated evidence against him. The interesting thing is that Walker claims for the rest of his life that the DPD didn't make public their evidence - whether the evidence was real, fake, modified, or in place before 10APR63. Why would Walker do this? One of the benefits to all CT-ers of calling someone dishonest or calling a piece of evidence fraudulent is that for evermore they anoint themselves with the ability to admit or deny evidence based entirely on whether it supports their CT. I would never accuse you of doing that, and you said a few posts up that if your CT is rattled based on good evidence, so bet it. That attitude is why we get along so well! Even so, I have to modestly suggest: We must first try to take Walker at his word. Maybe you feel you've already been through this and it's a waste of time - fine. But I have to convince myself. We have to find a way within the bounds of reason to make his story work, if for no other reason than to prove he's a fraud. The same is true of all the witnesses. The more power we give ourselves to unilaterally certify honesty or disregard alleged dishonesty, the weaker and weaker our investigation becomes. In your case, I might humbly suggest we can't just write off Walker as lying - that is what the CIA-did-it faction does as a habit whenever they see testimony they don't like. If we can dig up a weight of evidence showing Walker as dishonest, it's good for the Walker-did-it CT. If we can show that his claim that the DPD knew about Oswald on 10APR63 is unreasonable or far-fetched, fine. ^^^sanctimonious lecture concludes here, now stepping down from my high horse^^^ [===+++===+++===+++===] Assuming General Walker's essay in the previous post is honest..... The prime thesis Walker presents is blackmail. Curry is blackmailing Walker. Curry wants 10 grand or ...something?... is going to happen with Walker's file currently at Curry's house. Some of the music Walker wants us to hear is that a pissant little errand boy is blackmailing the Great General Walker - and how insulted Walker is that he is made to converse with errand boys instead of the cowardly boss (Curry). The South America references are IMO irrelevant. General Walker is spinning an assassination Conspiracy Theory. He's virtually naming Dallas Police Chief Curry as the guilty party for the dishonest fraud of calling Oswald a Lone Nut. Furthermore, Curry is double burdened by hiding the truth not only of the Kennedy assassination, but, of equal importance in Walker's mind, the attempted assassination of Walker himself on 10APR63. In addition to managing the cover-up, Walker is almost accusing Chief Curry of helping to kill the president, or at least of letting the assassination go on unimpeded. Walker says Oswald's end at the hands of Jack Ruby is of "consequence" and implies all this is a conspiracy The 2nd-to-the-last paragraph in Walker's letter is a provocative masterpiece. Yes, my man-crush on Walker's writing is showing again.... This is meant to explain the entire JFK assassination and coverup, I believe. At first glance we might be tempted to say Walker is calling Marina a dishonest tool of the WC - but I don't think he is. There are many layers in this paragraph and many more logical backstories that have to be true if what he writes here is true. It's important to remember, I think, that to Walker the communists, the CIA, the Kennedys, indeed much of the US government are all the same people, on the same page, and with the same goals. One of the main questions I have is - what can Curry do with Walker's police file that would compel Walker to pay blackmail? Ok, Paul, there's a lot here. I just think we can take notice of how you and Walker ironically share the exact same opinion of the DPD. Is Walker a diabolical genius able to weave fact and fiction together to suit his purposes? Is he a paranoid pre-Trump figure that is sure the FBI, mainstream media, etc. are out to get him? Or does he have a very good reason for complaining about the DPD not tagging Oswald in April for the Walker attack? Your CT might not be disturbed here, Walker may have had no knowledge of Oswald on 10APR63 ....as suggested by the McDuff side show - why would Walker initially accuse McDuff if all along Oswald was known -and intended to be known- as the Walker almost-assassin? QUERY: On page 230 of Walt Brown's Treachery in Dallas, it says that the Voshinins told author Dick Russell that the FBI knew of a link between Oswald and the 10APR63 attack on Walker - because the Voshinins told them of the link. If true, the FBI would immediately inform the DPD of the lead. Possible liars are: the Voshinins, Hosty and the FBI, or the DPD. *someone's not telling the truth here - who is it?? Why not cast a suspicious eye first at the all-time champions of mendacity - the DPD? If the Voshinins are honest - then I say there's a good chance General Walker is right in claiming the DPD knew of Oswald's role on 10APR63 or within a week. If he Voshinins are right then the FBI and/or Hosty now must be seen as Oswald's protector in the Dallas Spring of 63, right?...who in turn are able to quash the DPD investigation of the Walker shooting, right? I was already suspicious of Hosty protecting (or at least refusing to acknowledge) Oswald because he absurdly claims he chose not to interview him in the Mar-Apr period out of concern for the Oswald's marriage. Convenient! HYPOTHETICAL: The Voshinins are telling the truth, they linked Oswald to the Walker shooting and told the FBI, who in turn told the DPD. Somewhere in this law enforcement chain a leak was given to Walker, who knew about Oswald at some point well before the official discovery of he mea culpa letter at Ruth Paine's house post-assassination. The implications of the FBI and DPD knowing Oswald shot at Walker are profound. We know more than one person knew before 22NOV63 of the link between Oswald and the Walker shooting because of the John T Martin film and the German newspaper article..... Jason Marina's testimony is actually too messy to fit well into the Lone Nut theory - so I say she is telling the truth. IMO, Oswald's twice-performed ritual of telling Marina what to do if he doesn't come home that day tells us a lot. Oswald tells Marina on 10APR63 and 22NOV63 how to manage without him. The New York Times, January 1, 1964.

Paul, that is a great piece of evidence. Unless you tell me to take it down, I am providing Walker's newsletter in this post. My initial thoughts are dominated by the reaction that whoever wrote this is a powerful writer. He has a CT and explains it better than most anyone here in CT-land! He writes better than most graduate students. He moves the narrative along quickly and gets across the facts without childish adjectives. He's not saying merely what he wants to say as a selfish outlet for his emotions, he's presenting his case in terms likely to appeal to a reader - this habit is hard for most people to learn. I will stop short of saying he has the pithy, economical word mastery of Hemingway and instead conclude that Walker is the best writer of anyone in the assassination saga, which demonstrates a formidable intellect. Do you sense I am about to start a General Walker fan club?!? Ok, now, with my man-crush on General Edwin Walker exposed and documented for all eternity on the everlasting internet, I will get down to brass tacks, as you suggest. These tacks will appear in my next post so that this post is manageable in size. {unrelated side question: Walker is against the Vietnam War, is he not?} "Police Chief Curry's Boo-Boo." An essay by General Edwin Walker in the Friends of Walker newsletter. 1969. source: The University of Texas at Austin, Center for American History.

Maybe. But does the Harkness memo take pressure off Hosty? Hosty marches proud and loud through sworn testimony that there was never any such thing as the FPCC in Dallas. Oswald was always a meager, bush-league joke of a communist when he was under Hosty's watch in Dallas, Hosty desperately wants us to believe. ....rather late in the game, May of 64, Harkness starts saying that Oswald passed out literature in downtown Dallas a year earlier, which Oswald himself nominally confirmed in a letter to the FPCC NY - so wouldn't it be better for Harkness to just stay silent if he wants to help Hosty? Anyway, it's hard to know who's lying. But we can universally agree on what these people WANTED us to believe: HOSTY: No FPCC or pro-Castro activity in Dallas; Oswald is a silly character of no consequence when Hosty knew of him. OSWALD: Wants the FPCC (and all historians?) to know he has been working on Castro's behalf in Dallas. LHO always carefully documents in writing his flamboyant Oswald-as-commie activities to national communist headquarters. HARKNESS/CURRY: Initially and elsewhere generally agree with Hosty's portrait of Oswald as puny non-person during the 62-early 63 time in Dallas - but later, inexplicably, come to agree with Oswald that Oswald was doing his ¡VIVA FIDEL! show in Dallas, before he left for New Orleans. So really, I think even if we don't know the truth, we could benefit from trying to understand the versions of the truth these characters want us to believe. maybe??? Jason

That's a very interesting scene to imagine - Walker flying into a rage about the dirty lies of DPD Police Chief Curry! I think I'm going to take Walker's side as a trial point of view, just to see where it leads. We already know Curry is not a purveyor of truth. So we all agree with General Walker on this detail. I am going to assign Walker the extremist hat, but I'm not going to call him paranoid or insane; so forgive me but I will now explore the possibility that, as for all of us, Walker's lies are purposeful and reasonably well-thought out in a rational mind. Jason

That makes the DPD liars and conspirators. With that in mind, I think I will consider this further: I'm afraid my marriage to open-mindedness means I have to ask: Maybe Walker's telling something close to the truth here? Alternatively, maybe he's hating on the DPD because of real or fabricated evidence he knows exists? Would he really bang on about this for 30 years if there was not one ounce somewhere in evidence supporting his Oswald-was-let-go CT? Is it possible Oswald was to be arrested on 10APR63, according to plan? I know this disturbs your CT and Lone-Nut motivation of LHO on 10APR, but I think I'm having to accept that LHO is in some kind of conspiracy starting no later than March - because he's busily manufacturing patsy-evidence which will later be used to convict him in the court of public opinion. According to Marina's testimony, Oswald made plans around never coming home the night of 10April - which is the same thing he did on the morning of 22NOV63. A Pattern here? I am not in the CT-advocacy role, but I think I will look into this and of course I hope you will address it. Of course I am aware of your CT detail that has Walker getting wind of Oswald-as-attempted-assasin through the Hosty-Surrey-de Mohrenschildt connection (and the Russian couple, forgot their names - who brought this to the FBI after Easter Sunday 1963). This makes sense. But what doesn't make sense is why Walker would from then on accuse the DPD of letting Oswald go. Saying Walker is crazy or paranoid is too easy. It's a cheap way out! No, I don't think the Kennedys ordered Oswald to shoot Walker, but I will tentatively entertain the idea that Walker only made these claims for decades because of some evidence that the DPD let Oswald go - evidence that could have been real or planted, pre-planned or accidental. VERY VERY Speculative thought -not even a test hypothesis- : Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting of 10APR63, either as Lone Nut, fake, conspiratorial, or as patsy, was known by the DPD on 10APR63. Ironically, me, you, and Walker share one strong belief: the DPD are liars and almost always conspiratorially manipulating Oswald-related evidence. Even if your CT is 100% correct that Walker is the ringleader of the assassination, Walker is clearly pissed off at the DPD about Oswald even before 22NOV63....IMO. Jason

Jim, "bank endorsements" and ABA numbers were and are easy to create. I can only sporadically follow this thread but I do appreciate that you've posted some reasonable evidence a few posts up, not that I necessarily agree with your interpretation. But you do provide evidence, which I appreciate. However, one of the most damaging logical fallacies I see is the insistence that the CIA/FBI/??? are massively funded, conspiratorial, knowledgeable, and technologically advanced - yet whenever you come across a problem with the evidence they suddenly become stupid, careless or unable to perform the simplest of forgeries - like "bank endorsements" and ABA numbers. IMO from what you've posted, all evidence is made to fit into your pre-determined CT, and where evidence contradicts your CT instead of admitting it, you make up stuff, like arguing ABA numbers are hard to forge. At least for me your overall arguments would be much more believable by saying, "I don't know why the CIA/FBI/??? didn't make the simplest effort to forge "bank endorsements" and ABA numbers." At least then I could trust your evaluation of evidence, but in your current method ALL evidence supports your CT so your entire CT is unbelievable, IMO. Again, thanks for the raw evidence you post. Agreed. Jason

Hi Paul, From my PoV, this is potentially a question that, if answered correctly, solves the assassination. Isn't most of what we've done over the last month showing that the cops in Dallas are the ground crew and central casting on 22NOV63? Walt Brown calls them the Blue Death in his book, Treachery in Dallas. Maybe they can tell us more. «Jason's Query™» The report Sgt Harkness writes in May 1964 is a clue, right? Why so long after the deaths of JFK and Oswald does the DPD suddenly produce a report all but documenting Oswald's FPCC activity in Dallas before he leaves for New Orleans? Brainstorming now: so in May of 64 they've silenced Oswald and Ruby. The Warren Commission is generally cooperating in their "investigation." There's already a boatload of evidence showing that LHO is a commie nutcase and a Castro disciple. Although Hosty is desperately trying to prove he had no reason to see Oswald as a threat, there is no evidence* that Oswald was ever even on DPD's radar. No one's saying that the DPD should've been watching Oswald; this charge is made against Hosty and the FBI. If I am Chief Curry, what am I getting nervous about that makes me tell Sgt Harkness to retroactively report Oswald was a FPCC agitator a year earlier in Dallas? Jason * officially, Oswald is unknown to Dallas police until 22NOV63. One man says otherwise: General Edwin Walker!

... perhaps because Oswald mentions unemployment in the letter and there is a limited set of days this can mean, taking his JCS attendance records into account? His last day at work was the 6th, wasn't it? ...JCS apparently mails him his last check, which in any case is cashed on 12 April. This is as much as I can see for Mary's guess. I'm not advocating her guess, btw, just trying to consider it. Jason

Apologies Paul, I have limited internal processing power and do not comprehend what you mean by this. AFAI can tell there's a month difference here, which I am willing to accept as within the acceptable range of memory errors between people who weren't solely preoccupied with this saga in the spring of 1963. As you say, Mary Ferrell may be wrong by a month, but so could anyone else here. What difference does it make, what am I missing? Jason

I appreciate very much your pursuit of deep background instead of merely reading a dozen conspiracy books and regurgitating here. It would be illuminating if someone could trace a repeating pattern or thread in Walker's career that leads him to a role in the assassination story. I've only been looking at Walker for about 6-8 months, but to me his career seems standard for a West Point graduate and an enthusiastic soldier.....until....about the mid 1950s when McCarthyism is fashionable and equality for African Americans begins making fragile progress. It seems to me he goes off the rails at this point. Although jailing him for mental evaluation was a vile abuse of power by the Kennedys, I nevertheless sense a growing paranoia and move towards irrational thought. Maybe he was military intelligence and volunteered for the LSD trials? kidding... Jason

Sorry, we barely submit anything in paper form anymore and although I recall bulk transfers from earlier in my career, I don't have any details to share. I respond to you because you have a grip on rational thought -however- the whole topic should be at most two posts long: a non-banker asking for a banker's opinion followed by an answer in the next post. If you don't believe ME, ok, simply print out the back of the money order and bring it to your bank and ask if this is a valid endorsement. The fact is with a large commercial depositor, no one at any stage of processing is checking the endorsement - it could be a scribble, it could be in Chinese, it could be missing entirely. The endorsement means almost nothing (in this case), likewise any "missing" endorsement or ABA number means nothing. The Fed promulgated guidelines and has since time began never enforced them in routine daily transactions. Then and now processing occurs without signatures, with missing dates, and with all kinds of arguably invalid attributes. To imagine Klein's is in on the assassination is why CTers are seen as the lunatic fringe. Imagining you can read a tiny snippet of federal regulations and become an expert on check processing without any bank experience is ridiculous.

Hi Paul, I don't know if anyone else has spent much time digging deep into Hosty and Surrey and Oswald and the FPCC in the spring of 63, but I feel this might reveal who is programming Oswald's actions. IMO Oswald's letter to the FPCC in the spring of 1963 -before he moves to New Orleans- is clear evidence that the authors of the assassination have their hooks into Oswald by this time. As always, I believe that whoever scripted Oswald's summer of FPCC-love in New Orleans authored the Kennedy assassination. ..... Now, we have a little evidence that they had Oswald document himself as a FPCC Castroite while still in Dallas, do we not? Jason

Hi Paul, My review of the evidence suggests that Oswald wrote a letter from Dallas in April of 1963 to FPCC headquarters in New York - saying that he had already done FPCC work in Dallas and needed more literature. Someone at the FPCC was a FBI informant I presume, who in turn became the source of Hosty's temporary concern that LHO was active in the FPCC in Dallas. Is my interpretation of the evidence sound? In other words, Hosty got this information from Oswald himself - indirectly through a FBI informant within the FPCC.* 1. Testifying before the Warren Commission, Hosty denies there was any FPCC activity in Dallas: 2. But Hosty admits there was a report from a FBI CI accusing Oswald of FPCC activity in Dallas 3. CE 829 as referenced in the above WC testimony tends to confirm Hosty's story about a FBI informant accusing Oswald of pre-New Orleans FPCC activity: 4. A Letter from Oswald to the FPCC in the spring of 1963 suggests that Oswald himself is the source of the FBI informant's claim that Oswald is promoting the FPCC in Dallas. (But is Oswald telling the truth - and if not, why would he lie?)** 5. Mary Ferrell surmises that Oswald's Dallas letter to the FPCC is on 16APR63 - barely a week before Oswald bolts to New Orleans. (it's unclear to me from Mary's notes whether she has independent confirmation that Oswald was in fact handing out FPCC literature in Dallas or whether she simply takes Oswald's word for it, supported by DPD Sgt Harkness's untimely report.) 6. In May of 1964 DPD Sgt Harkness decides to make a report of someone handing out pro-Castro literature a year earlier. Hmmmm....the DPD really wants to help us believe that Oswald was FPCC-involved before New Orleans, right? It's a good thing Harkness remembered to make this report - a year later! * as we have discussed briefly above in this thread, there is evidence suggesting Hosty also has an unofficial backdoor conduit to Oswald's activities, perhaps through Bob Surrey ** Carlos Bringuier will testify that he encounters Oswald in New Orleans wearing exactly the sign described in Oswald's letter from Dallas: HANDS OFF CUBA! VIVA FIDEL! SOURCES 1-3 Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibis 4 Commission Document 107 - FBI Sup. Investigation of Assass. Pres. Kennedy dated 13 Jan 1964 5 The Mary Ferrell Chronologies: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40390&relPageId=210&search=FPCC 6 Commission Exhibit 1409

Hi Paul, I agree that a change of address card written in someone else's handwriting is not by itself evidence of conspiracy. However, because there is such a beautifully packaged paper trail in Oswald's own handwriting documenting every important move he makes from the Spring of 1963 until his death, I have to wonder about this anomaly. The postal evidence against Oswald is in fact critical to making the case against him. Not many murderers are convicted on so much evidence from the post office. Could it be that Oswald did in fact fill out a change of address form in New Orleans, in keeping with the program to hang himself with postal documents in his own handwriting? ...except, the form filled out by Oswald was for a move to Baltimore, not Dallas? 1. Oswald makes an ostentatious point to keep prominent US communists abreast of his plans - in writing. As of August 28th, 1963, doesn't it seem as though Oswald believes he is soon moving to Baltimore? 2. A USPS forwarding request submitted in New Orleans identifies Ruth Paine's address as Oswald's new home on October 11, 1963. This is not in Oswald's handwriting - and why did Oswald's new home apparently change from Baltimore to Dallas in about September, 1963? 3. Oswald opens up his final PO Box (the 3rd of 1963) on 1 NOV 63 in Dallas - using a mistaken or deceptive address on Beckley. source: 1 - Dallas Municipal Archives JFK Collection, BOX 15 http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box15.htm 2&3 Warren Commission exhibits

separate document: SOURCE Dallas Municipal Archives, JFK Project, Box 18 http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/index.html

Do you care to comment on the implications of this photo in view of Geneva White's possession of a totally unique and unseen backyard photo of Oswald? T (is this a relative???? (on bottom of DMN article)) SOURCE: David Real, "Alleged Assassin's Peers Dubious." The Dallas Morning News, August 21, 1990, Metropolitan Section p 1.

So his book conflicts with his WC testimony - and in 1982 Hosty is saying that Oswald offered his professional assassination services to Cuba. Is his yet a THIRD version of what Hosty knew/suspected about Oswald??? ===The Dallas Morning News, May 27, 1982

Assuming -Penn Jones was it?- is correct that Hosty is chummy with "I plead the 5th" Bob Surrey, perhaps Surrey is the one keeping Hosty informed about what Oswald is doing? It seems Hosty is keeping Walker-Surrey informed about FBI-ATF efforts to harass and infiltrate weaponized radical right groups in Dallas like the Minutemen. It's also proven by documents in this thread that Hosty hid the extent and true nature of the Minutemen threat in Dallas from the FBI and Secret Service prior to 22NOV63. I guess I'm saying is that it may not matter so much for your purposes whether Surrey is keeping Hosty informed or whether Hosty is keeping Surrey informed ... about Oswald. Perhaps it's enough to say they shared information even if it's unclear which is precisely giving orders in Mar-Apr 63? Anomalies are sometimes a big clue for crime investigators and Holmes is a lone outlier in the contention that Oswald was fully conversant about Mexico City and all the embassy shenanigans. What does this mean? Why would Fritz and everyone else want to say Oswald denied a Mexico City trip? Perhaps just to paint Oswald as a liar? Perhaps because they in retrospect realize they should themselves have no knowledge of the MC trip - in that Hosty's knowledge from the CIA was not then approved for dissemination? Or, crazy as it sounds, perhaps Fritz and everyone else has Oswald deny the Mexico City trip because Oswald did in fact deny the Mexico City trip? You are getting as good as Hosty in dumbfounding everyone with your bureaucratic expertise! Hosty drones on for page after page about internal procedures, paperwork, and file handling that to me reads like a typical bureaucrat hoping to bury us in doublespeak or red tape. Basically, Hosty is saying that an administrative impossibility makes it certain that Hosty was neither negligent in handling Oswald nor in any way involved in the conspiracy. His proof is that the rules, regulations, and procedures are his unassailable alibi. 07FEB63 - Hosty runs a credit check on Oswald on 7FEB63. 04MAR63 - Hosty finds BOTH the Elsbeth and Nealey residences of the Oswalds, and talks to the landlord at Elsbeth. Hearing that Oswald is a big boozer who beats his wife, Hosty touchingly worries about the state of their marriage and doesn't pursue the Oswalds further, nor walk around the corner from Elsbeth to interview the Oswalds on Nealey. Oswald is a drunken wife-beater, we are told, but Hosty doesn't want to intervene in case a visit from the FBI might weaken their marriage. In view of Hosty's testimony I paraphrase above, I might suggest Hosty is tracking the Oswalds no later than February of 1963. Furthermore, he's making efforts to justify his failure to make official contact (drunken wife-beating). If taken at face value, Hosty's courteous concern for the sanctity of marriage allows the Oswalds to slip off undetected to New Orleans where they can live for at least a few months without official FBI oversight. I don't passionately push a CT because I don't think it's necessary to explain every detail. For instance, it is not critical IMO to know why Oswald goes to the USSR. Likewise, I'm ok to just stipulate that around Feb-Apr 1963 Oswald begins feverishly constructing the essential building blocs in a criminal case eventually used against him - ordering guns, buying money orders, the Walker shooting, the backyard photos, initial FPCC contacts, etc. Who is programming him? That's the job of you crazy-loony tunes-fringe-tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists! Jason

Hi Paul, In my review of the police testimony there are at least 6 methods offered to explain how the police found Oswald's rooming house on Beckley. Each of 3 law enforcement entities offer their own explanation, which immodestly takes credit for finding the address: SHERIFF's DEPT VERSION 1: Buddy Walthers says he coaxed a phone number out of Marina during his 22NOV63 tour through Ruth Paine's house in Irving, which he gave to Sheriff Decker, who in turn did a reverse number look-up. SHERIFF's DEPT VERSION 2: Harry Weatherford says that he covertly looks in Ruth Paine's address book under the letter O during the 22NOV63 search of the Irving house, which helpfully has the rooming house telephone number listed, which he gave to Sheriff Decker, who in turn did a reverse number look-up DPD VERSION 1:An unnamed cop informs Capt Will Fritz of the Beckley address some time after Oswald's arrival at DPD for questioning DPD VERSION 2: Oswald offers the Beckley address during questioning in Frtiz's office on the afternoon of 22NOV63 DPD VERSION 3: Oswald has the Beckley address in his pocket as discovered after his arrest at the Texas Theatre. This was explained to landlord Arthur Johnson by a DPD cop upon arrival at Beckely. USPS VERSION: Harry Holmes, through the bionic thinking of an alert postal clerk, determines the Beckley address from a USPS PO Box application However, Earlene Roberts, Gladys Johnson, and Arthur Johnson testify the police arrive at Beckley between 1:30 and 2 - earlier than any of the above 6 methods could allow. Earlene Roberts is certain a police car stopped in front of her house and honked the horn at about 1PM -around the time of the Tippit murder- so the police had some kind of interest in the Beckley address earlier than any of the above 6 methods could allow Harry Holmes could only provide an incorrect address as Oswald put 3610 instead of 1206 on the USPS PO Box application - so USPS records cannot be the source of the Beckley address - weakening explanation (6) above Buddy Walthers is present at the 1:50 Texas Theatre arrest of Oswald and gets to Ruth Paine's house no earlier than 3, but has to wait 20 or 30 minutes for Sheriff's deputies to arrive who have jurisdiction in Irving - weakening explanations (1) and (2). The cops say they first arrive at Beckley at 3, while Earlene Roberts, G. Johnson, and A. Johnson say it is between 1:30 and 2. No police inventory of Oswald's property indicates the Beckley address - weakening explanation (4) above According to DPD records from 22NOV63, they believed Oswald's address was 605 Elsbeth. Oswald last lived on Elsbeth in the Spring of 1963, before bolting to New Orleans. I see evidence that only FBI man James Hosty knew about Elsbeth pre-assassination. Oswald was known to those at the Beckley rooming house as O H Lee. Oswald kept the details of the rooming house secret from his wife, his employer, the Paines, and the few others he knew (or anyway secret from others Oswald knew that we know about.) I might suggest that FBI man James Hosty would have found Oswald's Beckley address by getting the phone number from Ruth Paine during his 2 pre-assassination visits to the Irving house. Additionally, the fact that DPD in official records of 22NOV63 recorded Oswald's address as on Elsbeth strongly implicates Hosty again - as he alone had tracked he Oswalds there in the spring before they moved to New Orleans. 1. The only law enforcement interest in Oswald at the time he lived on Elsbeth was from FBI agent James Hosty - doesn't this 22NOV63 roster of TSBD employees produced by the DPD strongly implicate Hosty as the source of Oswald's addresses? source: Dallas Municipal Archives JFK Collection, BOX 5, Folder 2 <<<http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1409-001.gif>>>

Paul, even if your CT is not entirely correct, the evidence suggests Hosty is a key conduit for getting the "open and shut" case materials quickly and comprehensively into the conversation that weekend. Most of the DPD guys dropped out of high school. I'm kind of struck by how consistent this is in the police testimony. Hosty has a degree from Notre Dame (but wait, is he Catholic like Kennedy?). Hosty is also an expert bureaucrat; when you read his testimony half of it is painful procedures and paperwork details. I'd stop short of using words like "mastermind," but without this FBI agent marshalling evidence at lightning speed, the forces arguing for Oswald's guilt might suffer a catastrophic delay and therefore more quickly expose competing non-lone-nut suspicions. Hosty overwhelms Oswald with Lone Nut evidence on day 1. So....Lone Nut, Radical Right, mafia, CIA, or whoever one says is in control, it is always Hosty who logically facilitates the papered evidence of Oswald's guilt. Jason

Sandy, you are as wrong about this as you were wrong about your dental charts - and the endorsement on the M.O. is in full compliance. No, Sandy, the phrase "Any Bank" is not the literal requirement.... any bank means INSERT the name of any bank - as in The First Natl Bank of Chicago. I work at a bank and posted an endorsement above already. Go to a bank, any bank in America, and ask someone who knows. Your "example" is ridiculous on many levels, starting with the fact that you are citing the documents of a non-US bank draft. There are no special endorsement requirements for a money order, it is the same as a check. The Klein's stamp is all that is needed. This is a waste of time, goodbye.

By your numbers: 1. No - it doesn't matter who endorses the instrument - either the bank or the customer can. Walk up to a teller today and deposit a check and they will happily stamp it themselves. Or you can stamp it. Or sign it. The bank can endorse on your behalf and you can endorse on the bank's behalf in this case. Either way works and there is no requirement about WHO must affix the endorsement. 2. No, Sandy, you are wong again. An endorsement can be made to a Federal Reserve Bank...... <<<OR>>> is the key word you apparently do not understand: now.... take this slowly .....AND ACTUALLY READ THE WORDS YOU QUOTED from REGULATIONS: or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar This instrument is missing no endorsements.