Paul Jolliffe

I can only guess, but I agree with those who argue that by 12:45 or so, our "Oswald" had begun to suspect that things were amiss. Did he know at 12:30 that JFK had been shot? Probably not. Few in the crowd were aware then that the president had been hit. However, if Roy Milton Jones (teenage passenger on Cecil McWatters' bus) was correct, it was while the bus was stuck in traffic (around 12:45 or so) that both the driver and the passengers learned that the president had been shot. Immediately, the man on the bus (supposedly our "Oswald") then exited the bus, followed closely by an unknown woman. Shortly thereafter, two Dallas Police officers boarded that very bus and "searched the passengers for weapons", according to Jones. If true, that is a strong indication of criminal foreknowledge -at that moment, no one had any idea that "Oswald" was missing, let alone where he had gone! Further, the Stuart Reed photos of the McWatters bus stuck in traffic on Elm Street, east of the TSBD, posted earlier, are also overwhelming evidence of criminal foreknowledge. When our "Oswald" arrived at the Greyhound Bus Station to get a cab (again, supposedly) an unknown woman attempted to get into the cab with him. (I have never ever heard of any woman trying to get into a cab with an unknown man.) This behavior, odd on its face, may well have caused our "Oswald" to suspect something wasn't right. So what did he do? He stepped aside and offered her the cab to herself. She declined. (If she really was an intelligence asset, assigned to tail "Oswald", then the last thing she could do was to take a cab before she knew where he was going. Her only option would have been to tail him in a trailing cab.) He took Whaley's cab, but then gave an address south of 1026 N. Beckley. Whaley said repeatedly that they drove right past the rooming house. Our "Oswald" could see if anyone or anything outside of it looked suspicious. "Oswald" got out (some blocks south of 1026, exactly how far depends on which version Whaley was telling) and may well have backtracked on foot to the rooming house. Was he trying to shake any possible tails? So it would seem. Why did our "Oswald" wind up in the Texas Theater with two torn-in-half dollar bills in his wallet? Because he was an intelligence asset, looking for an unknown contact in the theater, and matching torn bills is classic tradecraft for contacts who don't know each other. His bizarre moving from seat to seat, always next to a stranger in a nearly empty theater, can be explained as the actions of an intelligence asset, looking for his contact. Somebody in that theater then repeatedly called the DPD, but the cops didn't react until the caller let loose that whopper that "a man had been seen walking into the Texas Theater with a rifle over his shoulder." Of course it wasn't true, but by then, the caller/conspirator/"Oswald" handler was desperate. I believe that this same intelligence handler gave "Oswald" the .38 revolver. It may (or may not) have been the same one used to shoot Tippit. Either way, it didn't matter: "Oswald" was to be shot during arrest, and the JFK case would have been "solved". Only his quick response ("I am not resisting arrest") saved him. All of this tells me our man was some sort of intelligence asset (albeit expendable), and knew enough by 12:50 not to go directly to 1026 N. Beckley.

Larry, As far as I know, Sylvia Odio always insisted that she was visited by the accused assassin - the same man arrested in Dallas, right? I mean, she never wavered or hinted that the "Leon Oswald" outside her door was NOT the historical "Lee Harvey Oswald", right? Therefore, her identification of the "Leon Oswald" outside her door as the same man arrested in Dallas tends to support at least some of Greg Doudna's theory. To me though, the single most salient point about that visit is this: in person, with "Leon Oswald" (future alleged assassin and violent, "loco" JFK-hater, supposedly) standing right there in front of Odio, NOT ONE WORD ABOUT "LEON OSWALD'S" ANTI-KENNEDY HATRED IS MENTIONED, EITHER BY "LEOPOLDO" OR "ANGEL" OR " LEON OSWALD" HIMSELF! If the in-person visit to Odio's apartment was intended as part of a frame of a witting "Leon Oswald" (either the real one or an impostor), then that during that visit this "Leon Oswald" should logically have made some very incriminating and memorable statements about shooting Kennedy! But, instead he said almost nothing at all. What kind of conspiracy has a (supposedly) witting conspirator say nothing at all incriminating? It was not until a few days later, in a phone call, did "Leopoldo" finally reveal to Odio just how violent, "loco" and anti-JFK was this "Leon Oswald." In other words, "Leopoldo" waited to tell Odio about "Leon Oswald's" feelings until he, "Leon Oswald" was not physically present to hear them. Why not? Because "Leopoldo" knew that this "Leon Harvey" was NOT actually violent, nor "loco" nor anti-JFK. Further "Leopoldo" did not want "Leon Harvey" to know that he, "Leopoldo" knew. I agree with those who have argued for decades that this "Leopoldo" knew he and his group were being infiltrated by an intelligence asset. I think it is very likely that the man arrested in Dallas, our "Lee Harvey Oswald", was indeed with "Leopoldo" and "Angel" outside the Odio apartment on either September 25 or 26. Further, I think it is likely he was there in some sort of intelligence-gathering capacity, possibly as an informant for the FBI or some other federal agency. Finally, I think it is likely that "Leopoldo" found out about our man from his own handlers, and was then more than willing to help the plot to kill Kennedy and frame this "Leon Oswald". Thus "Leopoldo's" incriminating phone call to Odio a few days later.

This is curious, indeed. Karl, do you believe that Whaley never had anyone at all in his cab (at least anyone who might correspond with the 12:45 cab ride from the Greyhound Bus Station to Oak Cliff)? If not, how did the '"Oswald" was in my cab on Friday" story start, if Whaley did not genuinely believe it to be true on Saturday morning?

Thanks, Vince. I will get your first book. I was under the impression that Boring and JFK got along well - if, as you write, Boring was a suspect (and I am not disputing your suspicions), then can we take seriously any Secret Service agent statement about their personal regard for President Kennedy?

Vince, When you spoke with Donald Lawton, what did he think about Emory Roberts? Why did Roberts pull him off the back of the X-100? What explanation was he willing to offer? In your research on Emory Roberts, did you find anything in his background (any connections to Military Intelligence, or the CIA, just to pick a couple) that might explain his order to Lawton? Who told Roberts to order Lawton to stand down? Who told the Secret Service NOT to cover the rooftops? Who kept the Dallas motorcycle cops off the sides of the limo? Who routed the limo through Dealey Plaza via Elm Street?

Thanks Karl for the testimony. However, that still tends to reinforce the probability that Whaley genuinely believed he had "Oswald" as a passenger on Friday. My point was simple: Whaley started all this by telling his superior at the cab company that "Oswald" was in his cab. Nobody told Whaley to do that. No one in law enforcement had any idea that "Oswald" had been in Whaley's cab until Saturday. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, the idea that "Oswald" had been in Whaley's cab started with Whaley and not law enforcement (as part of a set-up.) Somebody really was in Whaley's cab, and that somebody resembled "Oswald", and that somebody really was dropped off in "Oswald's" neighborhood at about the time that "Oswald" was on the move. Either Whaley had the real "Oswald" or an impostor in his cab.

As far as I can tell, William Whaley decided on his own on Saturday morning that the accused assassin had been in his cab the previous day. Nobody told him to do so. At that moment, on Saturday morning, no one in law enforcement, from the FBI to the Dallas Police to the Sheriff's Office had any idea that "Oswald" had been in a cab, right? Now perhaps Whaley was mistaken, and the passenger whom he picked up at the Greyhound Bus Station around 12:45 and whom he drove to (either 500 or 700 N. Beckley) Oak Cliff merely resembled "Oswald" in Whaley's mind. Perhaps. Harold Weisberg and Gil Jesus have done a fine job of demonstrating that Whaley's identification of "Oswald" would have been picked apart by a competent defense lawyer at trial. I totally agree - Whaley would not have been any help to the prosecution at trial. But don't we all agree that Whaley really did pick up someone who generally looked like our "Oswald" at that time and place, and really did drive that same someone to somewhere on Beckley in Oak Cliff shortly before 1 pm ? That can't be a coincidence, right?

Dave, You know better than to mention those Stuart Reed photos (proof positive of foreknowledge) and not show them. These two photos are overwhelming evidence that Reed was to photo-document the "official" story of "Oswald's" escape and arrest (and murder?) No one, and I mean no one, takes random pictures of a bus stuck in traffic. Reed was an intelligence asset whose job was to take pictures of the "official" narrative for the assassination. Reed's photo of the "Oswald" bus, taken facing east down Elm, several blocks east of Dealey Plaza: Reed's photo, now facing west toward Dealey Plaza, taken a bit later, still from the south side of Elm Street:

John Armstrong told me he himself had seen this bus transfer up close in person, and that it does have minute wrinkles on it. I don't see any in this photo, but that's what he said - there are small wrinkles on it.

Harold Weisberg wrote about it 55 years ago, but he didn't have access to the clip. The Warren Commission pretended they knew nothing about Shaw's statement at this press conference, and the FBI claimed not to have any tape or transcript of it. So of course, it was never part of the Commission's Exhibits.

Greg, You have put much thought into this, and I do agree with your theory that Marina and her two daughters visited the Furniture Mart sometime in the first two weeks of November. I also agree that it is likely that Hunter and Whitworth were telling the truth (as they remembered it) about the visit of the couple with their children. However, there is powerful evidence that our "Oswald" did NOT visit the Furniture Mart - he was at work in the TSBD. You have speculated that the visit took place on the one weekday in November when such a visit was possible - Veteran's Day. Maybe, but that's not what Hunter and Whitworth said. Your theory about a cash transaction at the Rifle Shop is legitimate, and everyone agreed that Dial Ryder was not lying about the repair tag. Someone came to the shop and wanted some simple "tapping and drilling" done on their rifle. Did Dial Ryder do the work and pocket the cash? I don't know, but that is plausible, and the fact the Warren Commission never even considered that obvious possibility makes it probable, in my view. We differ on the identity of the man with Marina. You say it was our Oswald. I doubt it - even the Warren Commission conceded that there were several apparent instances of impersonation in the weeks before the assassination. The Commission dismissed every instance, but virtually everyone here thinks at least some of those "Oswald" sightings were legitimate. I do too. I don't know who was impersonating "Oswald", but that man bore at least a superficial resemblance to our man. Marina knows who he was, which may explain why she is terrified to this day . . .

Denny, I share your skepticism of Greg's theory. However, I think we can dismiss the possibility that Michael Paine impersonated "Oswald" on the trip to the Furniture Mart - Michael Paine was 6'4" and "Oswald" was roughly 5'9".

"So he trots out Dale M and his satirical Single Bullet Fact. Which we utterly destroyed in our film. There never was a magic bullet. Period. End of story. Thanks to ABC, it took 58 years for the public to know that. But anyone who watches the film will never take CE 399 at face value again. With that, the Commission collapses." Jim, when it comes to destroying the Warren Commission's Single Bullet Theory, I will do you one better. Here is Dr. Robert Shaw, John Connally's surgeon, announcing to the world's TV, radio and newspaper media on Friday evening that the governor STILL HAD A BULLET IN HIS LEG! IT WAS "YET TO BE REMOVED"! That's right - hours after the assassination, long after the "magic" bullet had been discovered on a stretcher, a bullet was still in Connally's leg, yet to be removed! But the Warren Commission would claim that it was NOT in Connally's leg at that moment. No, said the Commission, that bullet (CE 399) was in the hands of the Dallas Police, soon to be turned over to the FBI for examination after a flight to Washington, D.C.! No wonder the Warren Commission pretended they knew nothing of this press conference - the single bullet theory never existed in real life. CE399 was never in Connally's leg. It was a lie right from the start. Jim, if it is somehow not too late to make the four hour version of "JFK Revisited", please urge Oliver Stone include this clip from Dr. Robert Shaw on the night of the assassination as Shaw forever disproves CE 399, beginning at the 4:50 mark:

Once again, well done, Gil. "Oswald" apparently said that while he did not know John Abt personally, he had learned of him through Abt's defense of people accused of violating the Smith Act. (I presume "Oswald" was referring to the Claude Lightfoot case of 1955.) Surely "Oswald" was given Abt's contact numbers by someone else. If Ruth Paine is to be believed, "Oswald" had Abt's home phone number in New York. Who gave it to him? When? Why? Did the framing of "Oswald" include giving him a number of the Jon Abt, the chief counsel of the American Communist Party in an effort to strengthen the link between "Oswald" and the Reds (at least in the minds of the public)? I suspect so.

Well stated, Gil. I am with you up until your last question: ("who at the Dallas Post office handed Oswald the rifle?") I don't believe there is any credible evidence that our "Oswald" actually picked up this or any rifle at any post office ever. We agree that he did not order one, he did not pay for one, and he did not receive one. Yet the rifle now at the National Archives does exist - it came from somewhere, and somebody planted it somewhere in the evidence stream in an effort to frame "Oswald." (I am not sure it was ever in the TSBD, but it eventually wound up in the hands of the FBI after, presumably, examination by Lt. J.C. Day of the DPD crime lab.) I think it's likely that "Oswald" was supposed to be killed on Friday afternoon, but because he was alive, the conspirators had to improvise like mad on Friday evening to frame him. What you have described sure seems an ad lib performance by desperate men, anxious to cover their tracks.

"Rolling Stone "liberal" readers must be eating this up---and that is the target audience. So, if you are a good smart liberal and detest Trump then you should think the Warren Commission's explanation of the JFKA is all you need." That's right, Benjamin - Mockingbird's targets are not you and I. No, their targets are the "good-thinking" liberals and conservatives who don't know anything about the JFK assassination. After reading Rolling Stone articles like this one, then "good" liberals and conservatives don't need to bother to examine the actual evidence in the case. And that is precisely what the Powers That Be want: a citizenry that believes that there is nothing to these "conspiracy theories" - because they like to read Rolling Stone, or watch CNN (or any other major network), and trust anything in the mainstream press.

Yikes! The ghost of Curtis LeMay lives on! (Stanley Kubrick's 1964 take on this 2021 story):

Oh, one other thing: I suspect the reason for the curious omission of Governor Connally's trousers from the evidence turned over to Gonzalez had something to do with the fact that, as of Friday evening, Governor Connally still had a bullet in his leg! Yes, that's right - Connally still had a bullet in his leg, long after Darryl Thomlinson had discovered the stretcher bullet. Further, the Warren Commission went to absurd lengths to pretend that Connally's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw, did NOT say anything about it, even though Shaw's press conference was covered by numerous members of the print, TV, and radio media! The WC claimed they knew nothing of Shaw's Friday statements, and even claimed there was neither a transcript nor any record of this press conference. Yet Shaw told the world that " The bullet IS in the leg. It hasn't been removed. This is a very insignificant factor, though. It will be removed . . ." Dr. Robert Shaw (inadvertently) destroyed the entire Single Bullet Theory! The WC didn't dare impeach him, so they had to ignore this and pretend he never said this! Watch and hear it for yourself, beginning at the 4:50 mark:

Benjamin, Thanks for writing that article. You are right, of course, about the preposterously indifferent reaction by officialdom to the Connally clothing. But we all know (don't we?) why the authorities had no interest in a careful scientific examination of Connally's clothing - such examination would reveal ballistic evidence completely incompatible with the "official" solution! All of the powers that be were determined to frame our "Oswald" (he was dead, after all) and all were determined NOT to muddy the waters with evidence of a conspiracy. So of course they didn't want Connally's clothing (until it was too late to do anything.) As a side question: could the presence of copper traces in the bullet holes on the front of Connally's clothing (and their absence at the back) be evidence of a shot from the front?

Jeremy, I believe you are writing in good faith, so I will respond in kind. We disagree about the significance and accuracy of the several witnesses, each of whom independently claimed that our "Oswald" attended Stripling Jr. High in Fort Worth in the mid 1950's. OK. There are only two possibilities: 1. Each and every one of these witnesses is either mistaken (or deliberately lying) about "Oswald's" supposed attendance at Stripling, or 2. They are correct - :"Oswald" did indeed attend Stripling for a brief period in the mid 1950's. I believe the simplest explanation for these witness statements is #2. You don't. Might I point out however, that your preference for #1 requires an incredible amount of convoluted (and frankly, contradictory) reasoning, whereas mine is very simple - the witnesses were right. Further, since first and foremost of these witnesses was the brother of the accused, and since he swore under oath that "Oswald" attended Stripling, it was incumbent on the WC to explain Robert's error, if error it was. (By the way, the first time Robert mentioned Stripling was NOT "a decade later." It was in 1959, a mere five years later.) Tasking the FBI to investigate "Oswald's" possible attendance at Stripling would have been easy, yet the WC did not do even that. Instead, we are left, half a century later, to thrash this out. A final resolution is not possible at this point in this matter, but the fact that the Warren Commission could devote so much of its time and energy to such trivia as Jack Ruby's mother's dental records https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=425 does not inspire confidence in the "official solution."

Huh. So not only did Robert Oswald (and several other witnesses) get the school wrong, he got the state wrong. He was off by a mere 524 miles, but "No big deal" . . . https://www.google.com/maps/dir/W.C.+Stripling+Middle+School,+2100+Clover+Ln,+Fort+Worth,+TX+76107/4621+Canal+St,+New+Orleans,+LA+70119/@31.2186706,-95.9869475,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x864e73ba1bbbb8e5:0x740a008b65e8d88f!2m2!1d-97.3791193!2d32.738844!1m5!1m1!1s0x8620af7c6fb33005:0xa1e0814f41f0f961!2m2!1d-90.1058227!2d29.9789342

Rick, I agree - the number of photos, negatives, and films that were damaged during the "official" investigation is mind-boggling. Of course, this is not a new topic - Harold Weisberg published "Photographic Whitewash" some 54 years ago in which he catalogued (among other things) the staggering indifference by officialdom to any photographic materials at odds with the lone nut scenario. As a result, we the American people, do not have access to the best material that should have been available decades ago. Instead we have (at best) grainy, marred, blurry, copies or, in many cases, nothing at all from photographers who were in perfect positions to record critical aspects of the assassination. Why? Because neither the Warren Commission nor especially the FBI wanted that material. To cite one legendary example, it wasn't until June, 1964 before the FBI finally got around to examining the Phil Willis slides, particularly #5, and only then because Willis himself had offered copies of his twelve best slides for sale. Only when major newspapers (including the Chicago American and the New York Tribune) reported that sale did the FBI and the Warren Commission finally give even the most cursory attention to Willis and his slides. Why not? Because Willis had snapped slide #5 in reaction to the sound of a rifle shot, and Willis's precise location could be seen on the Zapruder film (frame 202). And that meant the oak tree blocked the limo from the "sniper's nest". And . . . that meant a shot was fired well before anyone in the 6th floor window of the TSBD could possibly have fired that shot, which meant multiple shooters, which meant . . . conspiracy! So, of course, no one in officialdom was interested in evidence that would destroy their preconceived "solution" to the assassination. No, they ignored Willis as long as they dared, and then, only the most superficial questions would do for the esteemed minds of the Warren Commission and the FBI . . . See for yourself: Willis slide #5: https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/23009/phil-willis-slide-7-willis-5;jsessionid=1FBE4818A5B51FC5BB1A8E2E40382D69?ctx=d111657e-125d-4242-9307-aa2b87b0e22a&idx=7 Zapruder frame 202:

Joseph, Certainly Tippit's actions before 1:08 are highly suspicious and completely inconsistent with the conventional narrative. I agree that he was looking for someone, probably our "Oswald". You and others have demonstrated beyond any doubt that Tippit's killer was walking west on 10th street, toward Patton before he was confronted by Tippit. Did Tippit's killer come from Marsalis street? If so, he must have been dropped off there, right? While Tippit was apparently dashing in and out of establishments, making short phone calls, looking frantic, etc., he was not the only one. WCD 1518, pages 92-98 recounts the strange observations of the elderly couple, Mr. and Mrs. John Wesley Pennington from that very same time period. Sometime before 1 pm on Friday, the Pennington's were minding their own business at the Tidy Lady Laundry on the NE corner of Davis and Clinton in Oak Cliff. An "Oswald" drove up in a light station wagon, parked on Clinton adjacent to the side door, started to walk east on Davis past the laundromat, paused and returned to the Tidy Lady's public phone inside the laundromat. This "Oswald" made a hurried nervous call in a foreign language ("Mexican" sic) and then hustled across Davis, walking south on Clinton, apparently leaving his car behind. The Pennington's were not publicity seekers, but they believed they had seen our "Oswald." While it seems highly improbable that they saw the our "Oswald" (the man later arrested by the Dallas Police), it seems likely that they saw someone who strongly resembled our "Oswald," and that resemblance is unlikely to be coincidental. So, here we have J.D. Tippit calling mysteriously and driving around on and near Jefferson, apparently searching for "Oswald", while at the exact same time an "Oswald" look-a-like is calling mysteriously and driving and walking around in the same neighborhood. The Tidy Lady laundry and the Texas Theater were less than one mile apart. Traveling east on Davis (as it morphs into 8th street) brings one right to Marsalis, merely two blocks north of 10th street. Tippit's killer, walking west on 10th, came from somewhere east. The "Oswald" doppelganger at the Tidy Lady Laundry was headed somewhere in a hurry after making his phone call in a "foreign language". Tippit somehow got instructions (we believe) that led him to cruise east on 10th, just in time to intercept his killer. The mystery cop car in the alley south of 10th was slowly cruising west, shadowing Tippit's killer. Tippit got a message from someone. His killer got a ride to Marsalis from someone. The "Oswald" twin, on foot, needed a ride from someone. Joseph, were the two "cops" in the Dallas squad car in the alley the handlers for both Tippit and his killer? Was the Tidy Lady "Oswald" Tippit's killer? The Pennington's: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11913#relPageId=101 Oak Cliff - Tidy Lady Laundry (Davis and Clinton, directly across the street from yet another movie theater - The Kessler), the Texas Theater and the Tippit scene are all in the same immediate neighborhood: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oak+Cliff,+Dallas,+TX/@32.7463274,-96.829928,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x864e9a42ecce97db:0x99515b6c6f15ddaa!8m2!3d32.7203477!4d-96.8743083

At the end of the day, numerous independent witnesses believed (rightly or wrongly) that someone using the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" had attended Stripling Jr. High in Fort Worth for a brief period many years before the assassination. The the first of these witnesses included the brother of the suspect should have been grounds for a serious investigation by the Warren Commission. Instead, they did nothing at all. Had they done even a cursory interview with any of the administrators at Stripling, they could have cleared this up. Had they asked the FBI to figure it out, we wouldn't be here now. Instead, the Warren Commission completely failed to give us the answer to even the simplest of questions: where did the accused go to junior high school? From the extant multiple witness statements, it appears very likely that someone using the name "Oswald" did indeed attend Stripling for at least a bit, years before the assassination. That is not "derp". While we can't know beyond any doubt whether "Oswald" did, the burden of proof is not on John Armstrong, nor Jim Hargrove nor anyone else to show whether "Oswald" did, or did not, ever attended Stripling Jr. High. That burden, that charge, that moral duty was on the Warren Commission alone. The Warren Commission did not want to know the answer - and that can hardly be comforting to those here desperate to avoid the high probability that there really was a deep intelligence operation, years in the making, involving multiple people using the name "Lee Harvey Oswald."

Joseph, Fascinating stuff - thanks for sharing. Is there any chance you could post a link to the radio broadcasts from 1 pm (Wisconsin time) in which the dramatic change in the direction of the shots was suddenly aired? We know the New York and Washington D.C. papers were pushing the "lone nut" line way too early, but that line wasn't published until Friday night. However, an examination of any national radio broadcast from within 30 minutes of the shooting which reversed the fast-emerging (true!) narrative might yet provide us with a pathway to the conspirators themselves. If your recollection is accurate, then somebody knew the (false) "official" story and someone had to get it out there on the radio airwaves quickly. Thanks in advance for any specifics you could provide.