Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Doudna

Members
  • Posts

    2,133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.scrollery.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bellingham, Washington
  • Interests
    Dead Sea Scrolls, JFK assassination, Quakers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Greg Doudna's Achievements

Veteran

Veteran (13/14)

  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

  1. So you say. I don’t agree, and neither did a unanimous jury in New Orleans. Fred Litwin on his website has several articles that debunk the Clay Shaw / Clay Bertrand identification claim of Garrison, and is the best go-to information on that particular question; I recommend you familiarize yourself with Litwin’s arguments there. I think Dean Andrews did give a name when his secretary asked him over the phone who had called him about defending Oswald: Lane Bertram, heard by the secretary mistakenly as “Bertrand”, then misleadingly reported by Andrews himself to the Secret Service and FBI as “Clay Bertrand”. I connect Dean Andrews’ “excited utterance”, caught off guard, answer to his secretary of the Lane Bertram name, the name of the SAIC agent in charge of the Houston Secret Service office, to be in some way related to Secret Service assistance in conveying a request from Dallas on Marguerite Oswald’s behalf to her old friend and Marcello aligned lawyer friend who had helped her and Lee in the past, attorney Clem Sehrt. Clem Sehrt turned down the plea from Marguerite himself but I believe he or someone else Marcello-related informed by Sehrt was the actual caller to Dean Andrews. In my view, overpowering corroboration of a reconstruction that the call to Dean Andrews on the late afternoon of Sat Nov 23, 1963, re legal counsel for Oswald in Dallas, originated from Marguerite Oswald in Dallas (caller on behalf of her) and did NOT come from New Orleans Trade Mart director Clay Shaw who had nothing to do with it, is this: Monk Zelden, probably the leading and most celebrated criminal defense attorney in New Orleans, was called by Dean Andrews to be brought into a planned defense team for Oswald. Dean Andrews asked Zelden to go to Dallas immediately so that Oswald would have counsel, and Andrews would get to Dallas as soon as he could join Zelden there after he, Andrews, was discharged from the hospital. That was the plan as Dean Andrews envisioned and was discussing this with Zelden on the phone Sunday morning when the news hit that Oswald was killed, ending the plans for legal representation for Oswald. Here is the point: Zelden said, just as plain and as straight as could be, that the request for representation for Oswald to which Zelden had intended to assist Dean Andrews, had come from Marguerite Oswald, via intermediaries. Not from Clay Shaw. But from Marguerite Oswald in Dallas.
  2. The visit of Mrs. Hunter to Mrs. Whitworth's furniture store after 2 pm on a weekday to discuss tickets to the Richland Hills game surely happened. That is not in dispute. What is to be disputed is that simply was not the occasion of the visit of Lee, Marina, June, and baby Rachel in that store even if one or the other of the women placed it at that time and the other agreed. That family of four went from there to the Sport Shop less than two blocks away and the man gave his name as "Oswald". The woman was positively identified as Marina by the women and there was a 2-3 week old baby girl matching to Lee and Marina's baby girl born Oct 20. On the weekdays you suppose this happened at 2 pm, Lee was in Dallas at work and Marina was at Ruth Paine's house and not taking any trip to a furniture store with Lee. A different visit of Mrs. Hunter to the Furniture Mart on the morning of Monday Nov 11 Veterans Day is the day the visit of the family had to have happened, because it simply cannot have occurred any other day, unless you are going to argue for doppelgangers who look exactly like all four members of the Lee and Marina family and used the name "Oswald" (at their next stop at the Irving Sport Shop), yet were not Lee and Marina. You can see the same time-memory distortion phenomenon in the Sports Drome Gun range witnesses of the "Oswald" (who was not Oswald) there, how witnesses remembering the same event differed on which day in the past it was. The women would have said "Veterans Day" if they had associated the visit of Lee and Marina with that morning when they were there too. Did you adequately consider what I brought out about the cool weather, the "light wrap" temperature, remembered when Lee and Marina and June and Rachel were in the store? Unlike a misdating of the visit of the family by association with the wrong visit of Mrs. Hunter to Mrs. Whitworth's store, a memory of temperature at the time of the family's visit is probably not going to have been mistaken. That temperature memory proves whoever that family of four were, they were definitely not there at 2 pm in the afternoon. This point has nothing to do with whether or not it was Lee and Marina. It has to do with it cannot have been 2 pm whoever they were; Mrs. Hunter was just wrong. She was not wrong on visiting the Furniture Mart at 2 pm on a weekday to discuss Richland Hill tickets; but wrong on that as the day the family came in. There are very good weather records of temperature of every hour at Love Field, Dallas, from a federal agency for any day you want to check in 1963. You can look it up on any number of weather history sites, such as this one: https://weatherspark.com/h/m/8813/1963/11/Historical-Weather-in-November-1963-in-Dallas-Texas-United-States#Figures-Rainfall. Mrs. Hunter was just wrong about the man and woman with their little girl and baby, whoever they were, coming in at 2 pm because at 2 pm it was 80s-90s Fahrenheit temperature every single day at that time. Check and see for yourself! The weather detail establishes that the visit of this family of four occurred on a morning, and therefore not on the Wed or Thu Nov 6 or 7 game-tickets visit at 2 pm of Mrs. Hunter that did happen, just without the family showing up then. The family were in that store on some day which cannot have occurred later than ca. 10:30 am or so at about the latest. How does that square with these women placing that visit at the 2:00 pm visit on Wed or Thu Nov 6 or 7 when Mrs. Hunter was there that both remembered, talking about tickets to the game? It doesn't square, because that cannot have been when the visit occurred. It rules out that day. Any regular weekday Mrs. Hunter said she would wait until ca. 2:00 before going to hang out at the Furniture Mart with Mrs. Whitworth. There is only one day when a morning visit was possible: the holiday, Veterans Day, when Mrs. Hunter's daughter was not working and there was no 1-2 pm phone call which is why Mrs. Hunter waited until 2 pm. it could be on Veterans Day Mrs. Hunter had some juicy gossip she couldn't wait to tell Mrs. Whitworth, maybe something from the Richland Hills game, and went to the Furniture Mart Monday morning at opening time on Nov 11 on the holiday--who knows why. But that's the only day that works for the time of day--morning--when the weather data says the family were in the store. How do you propose to explain Mrs. Whitworth's memory of it being cool, and the little girl wearing a light coat or wrap in the store because it was slightly cool, when the family was there? This "fundamentalism" or "witness inerrancy" on witnesses' time dating of past associations of incident memories would be like quoting Marina remembering Lee practicing shooting his rifle in January 1963 as evidence that the March 1963 records of an Oswald rifle purchase at Klein's cannot have been Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. When it was Marina's time memory in error (not necessarily in that case motivated for any reason, just simple error). But, you're free to stick to doppelgangers coming in to the Furniture Mart when it was blazing hot after 2 pm and witnesses mistakenly remembering 90 degree heat as if it was cool light-wrap weather cooler than 70 degrees. 🙂 We will just have to disagree here, because I don't buy that all four of this family, the use of the name "Oswald", an identically colored car to the one they had means, motive, and opportunity to drive on the morning of Nov 11, the witnesses' positive identifications of Marina in a face to face meeting, are to be explained as doppelgangers, when there is no need for that. And think Steve--what is there not to like about this identification? It does not go either way on adding or detracting from whether Oswald killed Kennedy in any direct way. I don't know fully what it means myself, only that the facts call for it. Why not consider the Nov 11 idea? Anyway thanks for your comments.
  3. My point was that the reasoning of citing control of the autopsy as logically exonerating mob boss over Dallas Marcello from complicity in the assassination is a logical non sequitur. It is like arguing that mob figures could not have controlled the government coverup of plots to kill Castro, therefore clearly mob figures are exonerated from the Castro plots and it was CIA agents instead in Cuba, not mob involvement, trying to off Castro. Even if mob figures confessed to involvement in the Castro plots they should not be believed because clearly it was the CIA, not the mob, who was doing that, as just definitively proven. Same logic, same reasoning. Do you see? In neither case does the conclusion logically follow from the premise cited.
  4. Ferrie left for his trip to Galveston or Houston later that day. There is no dispute over Ferrie’s being with Marcello in court on Nov 22, 1963, or denial from Ferrie on that. No he didn’t. Andrews told his secretary, according to the secretary, it was “Bertrand”, Clem or Clay “Bertrand”. Andrews first tried to deny the call ever happened (in which he had been asked and had agreed to go to Dallas and represent Oswald). It was Garrison who made the case that Bertrand was Clay Shaw. The name the secretary gave sounds a lot like the head of the Secret Service’s Houston office, Lane Bertram, or the first name of the lawyer who likely actually made the call, Marcello connected and old friend of Marguerite Oswald who sought his help on Nov 23 for her son, Clem Sehrt. Marguerite in Dallas was desperate for an attorney for her son on Sat Nov 23 and was in custody of the Secret Service by mid-day that day. And it is known that some kind of inquiry from or on behalf of Marguerite came in to Marcello circles in New Orleans that weekend seeking a lawyer for Lee. Whether the mechanism of that contact involved any use of the name of Secret Service agent Lane Bertram I do not know but the similar sound of the names is curious. The secretary, meanwhile, would not have known what “Bertrand” meant, only that is the answer Andrews (despite Andrews denials) gave her and she told, which then put that phone contact to Andrews into a position that had to be explained. If the contact did come from Clem Sehrt, it would not be admitted to have come from Sehrt because that would go to Marcello. There would be a motive to frame Clay Shaw with that alias claim. Just another way to look at that case. If you don’t think Clay Shaw could possibly have been framed in that charge of using a Clay Bertrand alias and you are certain that would or did not happen in this case, then the Marguerite appeal and Clem Sehrt contact need to be explained in some other way.
  5. Again, I don’t know whether Marcello had actual involvement in the JFK assassination or, if he did have foreknowledge or played a role, how exactly that may have worked (although Marcello’s jailhouse conversations with the FBI informant, who said Marcello was in his right mind when he told him these things—some conversations said to be in the cell on tape and others in the prison yard by Marcello—had Marcello claiming control and actual hidden ownership of the Carousel Club in Dallas; that Ruby owed Marcello big financially; that Marcello knew of Oswald and had contacts of his people with Oswald not disclosed to authorities, and that Marcello claimed he had had JFK killed). (The FBI had those tapes and planted the informant on Marcello in pursuit of an unrelated investigation, and apparently on that grounds did not feel a confession by Marcello of the JFK assassination, that came about incidentally to the informant in the course of that, qualified as JFK assassination records which Congress’s intent was should fully be disclosed, which I believe is the FBI’s present logic and position. It certainly was not considered by the FBI as cause to reopen any investigation of the JFK assassination, or disclose to the public or other investigators or to Congress that extended confession reports had been obtained from a man considered by Congress one of the three leading suspects in America in the assassination, i.e. reports that someone “had talked” after all.) Whatever truth there may or may not be underlying the Marcello “smoke”, one point is always raised as a supposed argument there is nothing there: that Marcello could not control the autopsy. But neither could the CIA, but that is rarely cited as an argument for exoneration of the CIA. There is some kind of logical disconnect in how the autopsy argument is wielded to logically fallacious conclusions argued in backward reasoning to the possible identity of who carried out the hypothesized hit on the ground.
  6. My reaction too. And what is even more bizarre about Garrison’s complete lack of interest, in having his office conduct even a single known interview or inquiry of Marcello, is that two of the key figures said by Garrison to be in his headlights among the dozens all over the map, directly went to Marcello although one never heard that from Garrison. David Ferrie was said publicly by Garrison to have been a leading suspect, after a suspicious death of Ferrie that immediately followed a debriefing of Ferrie by Garrison’s office of what Ferrie knew. Ferrie, who had certain past contact with Oswald and, in one of the Marcello confessions, more recent contact in 1963, was directly working for Marcello’s attorney on a Marcello court case, and Ferrie was WITH Marcello in a courtroom in New Orleans on the day of the assassination. Then in 1967 he is debriefed by Garrison’s office expressing terror and fear for his life, following which he is dead within hours, ruled natural causes by the coroner. Garrison said the Ferrie death was suspicious but never apparently thought to suspect Marcello in that death. And attorney Dean Andrews Jr, who did legal work for Oswald in New Orleans, worked for Marcello, was an attorney for Marcello. Garrison prosecuted him on a perjury charge. On the day of the assassination Andrews was in a hospital which Dean Andrews III, Dean Andrews’s son, has said in a recent book (a) his father was in that hospital because of an attempt on his life; and (b) that Marcello had befriended his father because there was a mob contract out on the life of his father but Marcello saw to it that it would not be carried out (in Jeffries and Law, Pipe the Bimbo in Red [2023]). What are mob friends for, if not to stop something terrible from happening to one, such a shame if it did. Another interpretation of that is Dean Andrews was under threat of his life and knew it with every word he said, under complete control of Marcello. Hence Andrews’ dissembling re the source of the “request” to him to go to Dallas immediately and take control of Lee Harvey Oswald’s legal representation in Dallas, including under oath, would have been under duress and not objective at all, from start to finish, and the truth of who actually asked him (from someone Andrews could not say no to) would go back to the man himself, the one who could lift his finger up or down on Andrews’ life and Andrews knew it. But Garrison knew and saw nothing of Andrews’ connection to Marcello, as Andrews said every crazy thing and threw smoke around the identity of the source who had wanted him to go control Oswald’s legal representation in Dallas, with Garrison attempting to convince the world that came from non-Marcello related Clay Shaw. That could not have been more serving of Marcello’s interest if district attorney Garrison had himself been in Marcello’s hip pocket, as word on the street in New Orleans said Garrison was (Vaccara, Carlos Marcello: The Man Behind the Assassination [2013]).
  7. No FBI agents allowed to look into Marcello post-Nov 22. Marcello not mentioned in the Warren Report. Marcello named as one of the top three leading suspects for doing the JFK assassination by the HSCA which concluded there was a conspiracy and that Marcello (and Trafficante) had means, motive, and opportunity (but the HSCA did not claim to have found evidence), which HSCA recommended be further investigated. The FBI, which did not further investigate these figures HSCA recommended, kept on paper the investigation opened until Marcello was reported to have confessed--literally confessed. At that point the FBI Dallas office informed FBI hq that that report of a confession of the leading suspect logically was grounds to close down the on-paper-still-open investigation of the JFK assassination altogether, without investigating the person who made the confession further. FBI Dallas explained that they had interviewed Marcello and he had denied making the confession. FBI Dallas did not believe that denial was true. FBI Dallas believed Marcello had confessed, yet at the same time FBI Dallas did not believe that confession, which the FBI accepted had happened, was true, i.e. to be believed, on the grounds that Marcello was: sometimes not in his right mind; sometimes in his right mind but pretended not to be in his right mind; and sometimes in his right mind. Therefore on the grounds that no confirming evidence had come forth in their past years of non-investigation of Marcello to substantiate the new news of the confession, FBI Dallas concluded Marcello's confession should be classified as one of those times Marcello was not in his right mind. And FBI Dallas reasoned that a confession of someone not in their right mind did not merit further investigation any more than any other "excited utterance" not said intentionally by a person. I do not know of any direct evidence that Marcello did or was involved with the assassination any more than any of the people Garrison went after, other than Marcello's confession and some confessions of mobsters who knew Marcello. But there is reason to suspect Ruby of Dallas had some connection to the JFK assassination and, if one accepts that Ruby was not acting alone in killing Oswald, he had to have been answering to or working for either Giancana or Marcello, it about comes down to one of those two. He had contacts with both that would make either plausible. With Marcello, Ruby was in Marcello's #2 sub-mob boss of Dallas who had direct contact with Marcello, Campisi's, restaurant the night before the assassination. Ruby had recent trips to New Orleans, had hired Jada who was heavily tied into the New Orleans Marcello mob scene, etc. and etc. Lots of smoke to connect Ruby to Marcello. And when Marcello confessed, the FBI Dallas office with hq approval responded by declaring Marcello no longer a suspect because the investigation is ended, as direct cause and effect. Then Marcello confessed some more, to a credible FBI informant, and the tapes of Marcello being wired in weeks of jailhouse conversations with the informant are not released to the present day. (Almost as if there is something someone doesn't want to come out, there.) Unless one takes the position that the killers of JFK are known in a closed case, Marcello would seem to be a non-excluded suspect--a leading suspect according to the HSCA, and that was before the confessions, plural, credibly reported coming from Marcello himself. Why didn't Garrison go after Marcello? I believe Garrison's explanation was he saw no evidence Marcello was involved in organized crime in any serious way. Denied Marcello was a significant mobster. Denied what the Justice Department, Robert Kennedy, and everybody in New Orleans knew.
  8. Denny, I have the new Admitted Assassin book. I believe there probably was a physical diary of Roscoe White but the claim that an original Nov 22 entry in that diary spoke of killing JFK and Tippit I believe is BS. Also, the Savastano article in your link above is pretty good in debunking that the FBI would have stolen the diary. More likely someone disappeared it rather than have it be opened to examination to find nothing sensational and also authentic, at the same time, there. About half of Admitted Assassin is a detailed publication and exposition of the green scrapbook later found in the metal canister. Here there are similarities to the rollout of the Lafitte datebook published in Coup in Dallas. In both cases, no authentication or forensic testing or disclosure thereof; potential for huge sums of money if the artifact can be believed genuine; similarity in page after page of cryptic words, short phrases, mysterious allusions, given detailed commentary, made the center of discussion while simultaneously bypassing and resisting basic prior issues of authenticity. The similarities between the scrapbook and the datebook are such that it is tempting to speculate these two artifacts might stem from common origins, both seeking to utilize and bamboozle and consume energies of families and conspiracy-oriented researchers not themselves the hoaxers or fabricators. Consider just this: page 196 of Admitted Assassin discusses page 10 of the green scrapbook, which has a photo of Abraham Lincoln with the head torn off. Quoting Admitted Assassin, which frequently makes favorable direct comparisons to the Lafitte datebook as if citing parallel credible evidence: ”Interestingly, a Lincoln-head penny with a hole through the head of President Lincoln’s image was found taped inside the previously mentioned 1863 datebook of Pierre Lafitte.” Then a photo is shown of a “Penny taped inside Pierre Lafitte’s datebook” with a hole drilled through Lincoln’s head. Both the scrapbook alleged to be a mysterious, cryptic scrapbook of Roscoe White, and the Pierre Lafitte datebook with alleged cryptic allusions of Lafitte in 1963 to later JFK lore and names and etc, share the use of almost poetic allusive mysterious short phrases, with aura of profundity and deep significance. That “style” is common to both texts, and both texts emerged first to known existence in their present forms in the 1990s even though in the Lafitte datebook case that was only first published after Albarelli’s death a couple of decades later, and in the case of this Roscoe White scrapbook, in 2023, 33 years after discovery of the artifact, and giving almost an appearance of attempting to consciously associate with the Lafitte datebook. In both cases it might be suspected a real notebook/datebook of the person credited in 1963 possibly with a few innocuous genuine entries was utilized or appropriated and a later hoax with additional writing built up upon that. A red flag in the Admitted Assassin presentation concerns the sensational alleged military orders to Roscoe White found in the same metal canister of the green scrapbook. Apparently there was some forensic evaluation done of those military orders and the finding reported was consistent with forgery. However, the authors of Admitted Assassin do not disclose that with transparency and publication of that report. Compare the Lafitte datebook and a forensic ink analysis that was done and remains a tightly-held secret with public threats of punishing legal consequences if any scientist involved in such testing were to dare go public into the sunlight with that secret data which goes to the heart of the authenticity question.
  9. How it is known that Mon Nov 11, 1963 (Veterans Day) was the date of the Furniture Mart/Irving Sport Shop visit? Yes, Edith Whitworth alternatively said she had no way of remembering the specific day it happened, then said it was when she and Mrs. Hunter were discussing tickets for the Fri Nov 8 high school football game. And Mrs. Hunter at first said she reconstructed the date by linkage to what she said was a bus trip of her husband (no further information concerning that or its independent date), then that was dropped with no further explanation and Mrs. Hunter too said it was when discussing tickets for the Fri Nov 8 game. Mrs. Hunter said it had to have been mid-PM (when weather history data says it cannot have occurred; the cool "light wrap" temperature remembered is compatible ONLY with a ca. 9 or 10 a.m. time before the day heated up) based on she made her practice of going to visit Mrs. Whitworth at the Furniture Mart--where she liked to hang out for a couple of hours at a time--after talking to her daughter in a phone call during the daughter's 1-2 pm lunch hour at an office job. That reasoning of Mrs. Hunter is perfectly sensible except for the holiday, Veterans Day, when offices--her daughter's job--were closed for the holiday, and there would be no lunch hour phone call from her daughter on that particular day because her daughter was not at work that day, and hence no reason for Mrs. Hunter to delay any trip to hang out at the Furniture Mart that day (the Furniture Mart as a big-ticket retail store, unlike banks, the post office, and most office businesses, open on Veterans Day). The FBI verified Fri Nov 8 as the firm date of the high school football game referred to, so that date is fixed. We have a man who looks like and is identified as Oswald, who talks proudly of his 2-3 week old new baby girl. A young woman who is positively identified as Marina in the most basic form of positive identification there can be, a face-to-face meeting and conversation of the women set up by the FBI (Marina denying up and down, not too convincingly, that she had been in that store or seen those women there). Like Marina, the young woman with the man (Oswald) in the store never speaks English, has a 2-year old girl and a 2-3 week old baby. The women in the Furniture Mart see both the 2-year old girl and the the baby so that is not made up. The FBI as thoroughly and conclusively as it was capable of doing, established via investigation that there was no such local or area family with children of those ages or recent births of a baby girl, other than Lee and Marina. But asking about furniture for an upcoming apartment move, sounds like a local? Who could it possibly be in Irving of that description? The couple with their two children matching exactly to Lee and Marina arrive in a car of the exact colors of the only possible way Lee and Marina could have gotten there without Ruth Paine driving them: via Michael Paine's blue and white old car, parked on the street in front of Ruth Paine's house unused since late Oct when Michael Paine had bought it and parked it at Ruth's. I have cleaned windows for countless retail store owners in my life on routes--some that grew quite large-- that I would develop whenever I felt like moving to someplace new and scenic. The frequency was established--e.g. every two weeks, monthly--but with only a few exceptions I would leave flexibility on the precise day I would show up, adjusted to weather and workload issues. The customer just knew I was reliable and would show up at the frequency agreed though the exact day of the week would vary. I would remember doing particular jobs but not exactly when in the past (typically I would have to consult paper records to know that). They all run together in the past in memory--one has only a rough approximation of how long ago even though remembering the specific details of the job or a personal interaction. (Everyone has experienced this with remembering a visit of relatives clearly but the exact date being not so clear.) This was the case with Edith Whitworth, busy store owner, and Mrs. Hunter with Lee and Marina in that store. The issue of the date only comes up post-Nov 22, and they try to remember what exact date it was. They were influenced by talking with one another. And neither the FBI nor Warren Commission asked either of these women to recount visits of Mrs. Hunter to the Furniture Mart after Nov 8. But the date cannot have been a weekday prior to Fri Nov 8 if it was Lee and Marina because (a) Lee was at work at the TSBD in Dallas those days; and (b) Marina's whereabouts were known to Ruth Paine at all times those days because she was living with Ruth, and Ruth Paine said Lee and Marina never drove any car to a furniture store to her knowledge. And the time cannot have been the 2 or 3 or 4 pm that Mrs. Hunter thought with certainty it was--Mrs. Whitworth said she had no idea of the time of day--no matter who it was, because of the weather data history. As Mrs. Hunter got the time of day wrong, so she got the calendar day of the week wrong too. Easy mistake to make! They just were mistaken, because the evidence says they were. Not by much though. Nov 11 is not that much different from Nov 6 or 7, from a post-Nov 22 memory trying to fix that past date for the first time. Two commenters above (the discussion is welcome even if there are differences), like the Warren Commission, take the date reconstruction memory as fixed and fix on that as argument against the only possibility that date can work for Lee and Marina, Nov 11. One of the commenters concludes therefore it cannot have been Lee and Marina, which was the reasoning of the FBI and Warren Commission. The other commenter seems not to be pleased to say whether it was Lee and Marina or not on a non-Nov 11 date, even though that question requires an answer. Here is more: why the Irving Sport Shop visit had to have been Mon Nov 11 The Furniture Mart and Irving Sport Shop Oswald job ticket visits are linked and are the same day, because Oswald or the Lee and Marina and baby doppelgangers, whichever it was, went from one store to the other that day, whatever that day was. Therefore, whatever date is true or established for either one, fixes the correct date for the other. At the Irving Sport Shop it can be known that occurred Mon Nov 11, because Dial Ryder was alone in the store that day. We can know that because we know owner Greener was on vacation (from ca. Nov 1 to Nov 14), and because the only other employee of the Shop, a young woman secretary who probably also would help out at the front counter, normally was there but was not there the day of the Oswald job ticket. We can know that because that woman said she remembered no Oswald job ticket customer. And also, because it is clear Dial Ryder did that as a cash job with the cash going into his pocket not into the cash register, which is more consistent with being alone in the store. And the only day that makes sense for the secretary not to be in the store was Veterans Day, Mon Nov 11, when she had the holiday off to be with her husband and family, but Dial Ryder was in the shop because it was peak hunting season with lots of scopes (and other) activity and money flowing into the shop. A parallel to Dial Ryder doing the Oswald job ticket job for cash, doing the scope reinstallation on the spot, with the cash going into his pocket instead of into the cash register, is this parallel from a Secret Service interview of another transaction being investigated (some Nov 22 anti-JFK printed materials in Dallas): "Klause told his customer that he could make the film, and that he would have some ready during the early afternoon ... he made delivery to his unknown customer on that same day at about 4:00 or 4:30 P.M. He charged the customer $4.00 for the job, which was paid in cash. Klause did not write up this sale, as he said he saw a chance to make a few dollars on the side. Hence no record is available for this transaction. Klause said no other employees were at the shop, as they had gone home for the day." (Secret Service, 12/6/63, CE 2473, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=687) "No record is available for this transaction" is exactly what Dial Ryder told the FBI agent who surprised him by a knock on his door on Mon Nov 25, 1963, and Dial at that time disclosed the Oswald job ticket which up to that moment he said he had only told to his wife. The reason there was only the Oswald job ticket, but no cash register record of the transaction, for Dial Ryder was the same reason as the above: Dial Ryder was working alone in the shop on Veterans Day and the cash went into his pocket. That also accounts for Dial Ryder's reluctance to tell Greener about that transaction, an awkward conversation. And so Mon Nov 11 is when that happened at the Irving Sport Shop, which agrees with (a) Dial Ryder telling the FBI agent on Mon Nov 25 that he remembered it as about "two weeks" earlier; and (b) the Oswald job ticket was notably handwritten in Dial's writing in pencil not pen, and Dial related that to a day or two back there when he seemed to remember atypically using a pencil, which corresponds to documented use of a pencil by Dial confirmed on Tue Nov 12. Then in what might be called an "excited utterance" when Marina, caught off guard and denying like crazy any association of herself with that rifle the best she could, at first said on Nov 22 she thought she had last seen a glimpse of that rifle about two weeks earlier and without a scope. (It was without a scope when Lee and Marina took it out of the garage on Mon Nov 11 to take it to get the scope base repaired and the scope put back on.) Later in her Warren Commission testimony Marina swore she never saw a glimpse of that rifle after early October--the true Nov 11 date allusion completely disappeared in her testimony. Because the Irving Sport Shop Oswald job ticket is dated to Mon Nov 11 because of Dial Ryder working alone, that establishes, or rather confirms, Mon Nov 11 for the Furniture Mart date as well, which by coincidence is the one and only time that that could have happened when Ruth and her children were gone from her house, and Lee and Marina had opportunity to obtain the car key out of some desk drawer and borrow, without Ruth's knowledge, the old unused blue-and-white car of Michael Paine parked out front, and drive to the Furniture Mart and Irving Sport Shop. Its been there all along. But the FBI, and the Warren Commission, missed this one. There is no reason why it needs to continue to be missed now and today though.
  10. Could you translate that into an answer to the question asked? Are you saying it was or wasn’t Lee and Marina?
  11. Neither woman, in the days and weeks after Nov 22 when they tried to remember backward when that had happened, said they could remember for sure. The argument it was Mon Nov 11 has many supporting independent points as developed in my two papers but the big one is it is the only possible time it could have been if it was Lee and Marina, without Ruth Paine knowing about it if it was any other time, and Lee was not even in Irving but in Dallas at work at the Book Depository on any other weekday. Now I ask you the same question I asked Steve Roe (which he answered and now I ask you for yours): do you accept that was Lee and Marina, and if so what other day do you think they were there, and how do you account for Ruth’s lack of knowledge of Lee and Marina driving to a furniture store in Irving on some other day when Lee was not in Irving but at work in Dallas at the TSBD?
  12. Disagree. Furniture stores, like car dealerships and other large-ticket retail outlets, holidays and long weekends are peak sales, should by default be assumed OPEN on a Veterans Day unless shown closed.
  13. I appreciate your engagement of this case too and you have an edge, your Dallas personal and family history. I believe the FBI sought to find any record of a birth of a baby girl within the ca. late October approximate time frame, part of a family which also had a ca. 2-3 year old girl, that could be another hypothetical possibility for the family in the Furniture Mart, but failed to come up with anything. Of course you can suppose the FBI missed something, or maybe there was an unreported home birth, or it was visitors from outside the area. On what you regard as inconsistencies, I go into all of those thoroughly. The times and the date uncertainty I go into, how the two women came up with the estimates they did. In one piece of analysis I believe is original with me, I showed why it is certain that the Furniture Mart episode took place on a morning not later than about 10 or 10:30 am--not in the afternoon as Mrs. Hunter mistakenly thought and Edith Whitworth who didn't remember assumed from Mrs. Hunter. Why? Weather history data. The women remembered the little girl wearing a light coat. The women remembered the temperature was slightly cool, just cool enough that one wears "a light wrap". But weather records show every single day in that time frame was blazing hot by midday and afternoon, 80s, 90s--sweating temperature if one was not in air conditioning. Only in the early morning hours before ca. 10 or 10:30 am was it below 70 F, in the 60's F, consistent with "light wrap" temperature of the temperature remembered. And that time is the exact time consistent with the window of opportunity on Mon Nov 11 after Ruth Paine took her children next door for babysitting and left in her station wagon at about 8:45-9:00 am for a trip into Dallas that would take a certain number of hours. The only reason Ruth Paine said she was sure Lee and Marina never went to a furniture store is because she knew they had not gone any time other than Monday morning Nov 11, and she believed Lee and Marina would have told her if they had gone Mon Nov 11, which Lee and Marina did not. They were there when she got home. Ruth had no knowledge of Lee ever driving a car on his own and it did not occur to Ruth that Lee and Marina would find a key to Michael's blue-and-white sedan parked in front of the house without telling her and drive that car somewhere. In other words Ruth had no actual basis for her knowledge on this point apart from trust, for where Lee and Marina were for the morning of Mon Nov 11. And there is no need to ask Ruth Paine to learn the color of Michael Paine's 1955 Oldsmobile sedan, parked in front of Ruth Paine's house on Nov 11 after Ruth drove off in her green station wagon. That has already been answered. Michael's 1955 Olds was reported by the Dallas Police, from seeing it, as "blue and white"(https://whokilledjfk.net/ruth_paine.htm). If this man, woman, small girl and baby girl, positively identified as Lee by the women from television recognition and positively identified as Marina by the women from face-to-face followup contact--if it was a random mistaken identification of other persons who had a newborn baby girl at the same time Lee and Marina's baby was born--isn't that a bit of a coincidence that the doppelganger man who looks like Lee, woman who looks like Marina and doesn't talk English, 2-3 yr old girl and 2-3 week old baby girl, also arrived in the identical color of old car that matches the only possible car Lee and Marina could have had access that morning and the only possible means by which they could have got to the Furniture Mart that morning? On Mrs. Hunter, I believe her that she had seen Marina and spoken to her on another occasion prior to the Furniture Mart. I discuss all that, and Marina's odd reactions. Fri Nov 8 as the date of the game indeed is an anchor point. This is a case where witnesses remembered another event but not exactly when it occurred other than approximately, so witnesses try to reconstruct by association to fix when in the past something else happened.
  14. In checking on Google Images for 1955 Oldsmobiles it can look like it has fins from a certain angle (from the right front looking back on the right side). The taillights look raised a little. The description of the way the car was parked suggests it was angle parking in front of the store such that that could have been what gave Edith Whitworth that idea. But let’s back up on a point prior to the question of what blue and white sedan old car the driver was driving. Do you accept that was Lee and Marina Oswald? If not, who do you think it was? You know the two women identified Marina in a later face to face, and the woman in the store did not talk and was sullen which sounds like Marina. You know the man looked like Oswald according to the two women, and said they were planning a move to an apartment, and that he had just had a baby girl born two weeks earlier, which matches Lee and Marina who had baby Rachel born Oct 20, 1963. You know this Furniture Mart visit occurred just before a man gave a name of “Oswald” to a gunsmith down the street from where Edith Whitworth directed this man, who wrote down that name “Oswald” on a job ticket, the same man who minutes earlier had been in the Furniture Mart with the new baby girl and was last seen by the two women driving in the direction Mrs. Whitworth told the man to go to find that gunsmith. You know the man and woman who looked like Lee and Marina and had a new baby also had a 2-3 yr old girl with them which matches Lee and Marina’s 2-yr old June. You know the FBI tried very hard by checking birth records for a recent birth to find some other family in the area other than Lee and Marina, that could be another possibility for the identification of that family, without success. Do you suppose it was a freak-coincidence family matching Lee and Marina, that not even the FBI could identify from area county birth records? What would be your main reason, if so—not the Warren Commission’s, but your main one—for rejecting that that was Lee and Marina? The answer to the prior question of whether this was Lee and Marina will affect assessment of the identification of the car driven.
  15. There is a logical problem in citing the Leavelle claim that no officers marked shell hulls found at the Tippit crime scene, as argument for no proof of match to Oswald’s pistol, unless you truly believe Leavelle’s claim. There is plenty of evidence officers marked crime scene shell hulls on Nov 22 and that Leavelle was making it up when he claimed that didn’t happen. The Leavelle claim only has force if it is true. Maybe better to argue for reasonable doubt on chain of custody, e.g. absence of firsthand testimony from any of the marking officers establishing identifications of their alleged marks, etc without invoking the bogus claim of Leavelle. The only officers asked under oath to identify their marks did not claim they never marked, they instead struggled and failed to credibly identify accurately what they believed they had marked, among the marks on the hulls presented to them. The zero sworn testimony establishing chain of custody of those hulls could go to reasonable doubt on whether there were substitutions, given the stakes at issue in this particular case and other grounds for doubt that Oswald was the gunman who carried out what looks more like a professional execution of officer Tippit.
×
×
  • Create New...