Greg Doudna
-
Posts
2,290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Doudna
-
-
13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:
That poor besieged mother
Completely right. Unfortunately lashing out in accusations that the Secret Service agents tasked with her personal protection, and Marina Oswald, and Ruth Paine were party to assassinating President Kennedy had no basis in fact, i.e. no different than the same genre of accusations toward innocent people to the present day: "spider sense"--which has resulted in untold numbers of false convictions and false executions in history.
-
Domingo Benavides' testimony on the Tippit killer physical description: Oswald vs. Craford, who did Benavides actually see?
Benavides, who was driving east on 10th Street and had almost arrived to the position of the Tippit cruiser when Tippit was shot and killed, who saw both the killer at the right front fender of the cruiser and Tippit fall as he was shot, was probably the single best witness of the Tippit killer of all witnesses, in terms of close proximity, getting a good look, and credibility. He saw the killer and Tippit both, heard the shots, saw Tippit fall from being shot, then saw the killer running away with a gun in his hand, although he did not see the killer fire the shots. Benavides told the police at about 4 pm on Fri Nov 22 that he could not identify the killer so he was not taken by police to a police lineup or utilized further. There is good reason to suspect Benavides said that because he feared running afoul of something gangland if he made an identification. Over the years Benavides has accepted that it was Oswald whom he saw which seems influenced by the apparently convincing accepted narrative. Here I note several details of Benavides' Warren Commission testimony concerning the killer which point to Craford rather than Oswald as that killer.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Did you see the officer as he was getting out of the car?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; I seen as he was, well, he had his hand on the door and kind of in a hurry to get out, it seemed like.
Mr. BELIN - Had he already gotten out of the car?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He had already gotten around.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you see the other man?
Mr. BENAVIDES - The other man was standing to the right side of the car, riders side of the car, and was standing right in front of the windshield on the right front fender. And then I heard the shot. Actually I wasn't looking for anything like that, so I heard the shot, and I just turned into the curb. Looked around to miss a car, I think.
And then I pulled up to the curb, hitting the curb, and I ducked down, and then I heard two more shots.(. . .)
Mr. BELIN - Now, the first time that you saw him, what was his Position?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He was standing, the first time I saw him. The man that shot him?
Mr. BELIN - Yes.
Mr. BENAVIDES - He was standing like I say, on the center in front of the windshield, right directly on the right front fender of the car.
Mr. BELIN - He was not moving when you saw him?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; he wasn't moving then.Mr. BENAVIDES - As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away.
In other words, he was pointing toward the officer, and he had just turned away to his left, and then he started. There was a big tree, and it seemed like he started back going to the curb of the street and into the sidewalk, and then he turned and went down the sidewalk to, well, until he got in front of the corner house, and then he turned to the left there and went on down Patton Street.Note the detail, the killer "had just turned away to his left", which would be the killer turning to face the right front fender of the car with his right hand nearest it where the fingerprints were found, as opposed to turning around in the other direction away from that part of the cruiser where the prints were.
Was the killer slender like Oswald or average (not particularly slender), in agreement with Craford who was 1" or 1-1/2" shorter than and about 10-15 pounds heavier than Oswald?
Mr. BELIN - Was he average weight, slender, or heavy?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was average weight.Was the color of the killer's hair the light brown of Oswald or the darker and fuller brown of Craford?
Mr. BELIN - What color hair did he have?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Oh, dark. I mean not dark.
Mr. BELIN - Black hair?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No. Not black or brown, just kind of a----
Mr. BELIN - My color hair?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - You say he is my size, my weight, and my color hair?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He kind of looks like---well, his hair was a little bit curlier.Oswald's hair was not curly or wavy at all. Craford's hair while not curly was full and wavy.
What about complexion? Oswald was a "light" complected white man.
Mr. BELIN - What about his skin? Was he fair complexioned or dark complexioned?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He wasn't dark.
Mr. BELIN - Average complexion?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; a little bit darker than average.
Mr. BELIN - My complexion?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I wouldn't say that any more. I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine.Craford (per FBI description Dec 1963, and color photos of Craford taken by the FBI at that time seem to confirm) was "medium" (not "light") complexion.
What about the back of the killer's head? Note the incredible significance of Benavides' comment below, and notice how Belin changes the subject from this bombshell:
Mr. BELIN - Okay, well, I thank you. I was flying from St. Louis to Des Moines, Iowa. at about this time. Is there anything else?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. And he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back.
Mr. BELIN - When you put these two shells that you found in this cigarette package, what did you do with them? (. . .)Oswald had a tapered, not block cut, of the hair on the back of his head (from many well-known photos of Oswald from the weekend of the assassination). If Benavides' testimony is accurate on this one point, Oswald was not the Tippit killer.
Benavides had not been asked about this bombshell in direct questioning, but introduced it on his own in the standard "anything else" question to witnesses at the end. Belin shows no interest or followup and changes the subject immediately. Why would stand-alone exculpation of Oswald as the Tippit killer according to this credible witness testimony be of any interest to Belin to further pursue or question?
Let it be emphasized: this is a highly credible witness, who says he got a "good look" at the killer from only fifteen or twenty feet away as the killer was running away, who is saying what he saw of a specific item of physical description that cannot have been Oswald.
There are no photos known of the back of Craford's head. The FBI in Dec 1963 did get a good color side profile photo of Craford standing. That photo seems suggestive of a block cut in the back of Craford's head but does not seem possible to verify that for sure from that photograph.
The killer looked like Oswald, just as many witnesses thought of Craford, independently of the Tippit case:
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or both, or neither?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like.Update on the left- or right-handed question
On a separate point (and correcting something I wrote above earlier), I don't think the fingerprints on the right front fender of the Tippit cruiser, or Scoggins' witnessing of the killer holding the gun in the air in the killer's left hand as the killer ran away ejecting shells and reloading, means the killer must be left-handed. The killer could have shot holding the gun in his right hand, then shifted the gun to his left hand in order to (being right-handed with greater dexterity of the right hand) take the used shell casings out of the pistol and reload with new live cartridges with his right hand. In a reconstruction of a right-handed killer, the shift of the gun to the left hand would happen immediately after the shots were fired before the killer turned (to his "left" to face the right front fender of Tippit's car as he turned, per Benavides). This would leave his right hand free to momentarily place his fingers on that right front bumper of Tippit's car perhaps for balance as pivoting. I do not see sufficient evidence to know whether the Tippit killer was left- or right-handed.
-
Thanks Sean C. While what you point out is possible (meaning lack of match of those fingerprints to any suspect falls short of airtight exoneration of that suspect), I think the weight is in favor of those fingerprints being from the killer if the finding of Lutz is correct that it appeared the same individual left both the right door prints and the right front fender prints. The DPD photograph of the right front fender prints shows quite a few fingerprints clustered there, as if multiple fingers were used to rest body weight on that bumper or fender. If those were not from the killer, it would have to be supposed a double coincidence--that some non-Tippit-killer person not only put their fingers on the right front door but that same person also put their hand or fingers on a lower part of the right front of the car which is not a natural place for a bystander to do that. The argument from improbability of that coincidence suggests the fingerprints did come from the killer of Tippit. If there were a confirmed match to Craford of those right front bumper fingerprints, which are readable, there could hardly be any other explanation for Craford's contact with the Tippit cruiser in that manner than that he was present at the crime scene on 10th Street as the killer of Tippit. That is the most important fact here and if confirmed would be sensational.
-
The above post from Karl K. illustrates what I have seen over and over--some specific misstatement, some specific allegation concerning Ruth Paine is called out as not true, and the response is an avalanche of invective toward Ruth Paine over other things and reasons why she is claimed to be an evil person, with no addressing the original point.
As if it is OK to fabricate any specific allegation about Ruth Paine out of whole cloth, on the grounds that she is an evil person for so many other reasons so it is irrelevant whether any specific claim is true. This is not isolated to this instance but happens time after time. Then any discussion gets derailed into all these other issues.
By this logic no specific untruth or unfounded allegation concerning a targeted person can be fact-checked, because it triggers the avalanche of what-about-xyz over here and over there.
On the point at issue--that there is this allegation that Ruth Paine never lifted a finger to contact the ACLU--I don't know whether Gil Jesus invented it himself or copied it from someone earlier who copied it from someone who copied it from someone going back to someone who just made it up. Gil Jesus may not have started out knowingly intending to assert something as if it was an established fact which if it were true would be damaging to Ruth Paine's reputation but for which there is no evidence or basis. Everything else I can see from Gil Jesus's writing says, whether right or wrong on his arguments he is not the kind of person who would knowingly start out dishonest in his writing . . . but he now knows, and is not correcting. Just like others on this forum. When LN'ers do this sort of thing--refuse to correct and look like they know better--people are quick to use the L word. Yet failure to acknowledge error even when one can privately see it is error--one or two major CT names almost seem to have that as policy, to just ignore or try to smear the fact-checker (Gil Jesus has not done that; others have)--is so common that if the L word were applied to "refusal to admit error when one knows it is error" that would apply to a huge percentage of people here and everywhere. I am talking about the large category of people who are honest at the outset but once committed and for reasons of not wanting to be embarrassed it becomes a mode of, like Trump, never admit, never apologize, never retract.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"--ancient near eastern law, one of the ten commandments. That is not wrong because a deity said it, but because humans know that is wrong because that is what humans condemn when others do to them.
Or is it Ruth Paine is not considered in the category of "neighbor", a human being, has she become dehumanized such that false accusation is not considered even to matter in her case, in this rhetorical world of CT's represented by the Karl K. post, and I am citing Karl K.'s post here not to single him out but because it is so generically representative of an ethos in this community which is so wrong.
Turning to the subject which Karl K. raises, which is off-topic here, at a superficial level this could be called a Rorschach Inkblot phenomenon of mundane human interaction involving Ruth Paine interpreted in the worst possible light, over the top. But actually the issue of those Life magazine reporters and what they were doing in Ruth Paine's house I have something to say about that, which I will take up in a different post.
Suffice it to say for starters that contrary to Marguerite's claim in the interview clip posted by Karl in which she accuses Ruth Paine of inviting those reporters in--in the clip posted by Karl of a Secret Service interview of Marguerite Oswald of Mon or Tue Nov 25, 1963--Ruth Paine says those Life reporters were there because Marguerite had requested them. (This in an interview of Ruth Paine in the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine".) There is a flat-out contradiction in "Who invited the reporters?", a she says vs. she says issue here, and it might be well to withhold automatic judgment against Ruth Paine absent a fuller consideration of the facts of this particular issue (some research concerning which I will develop under a different topic header).
And the other oddity about the clip of the Marguerite Oswald Secret Service interview interpreted by Karl in such negative terms concerning Ruth Paine, is that Marguerite at first denied that interview ever happened, then when pressed admitted she had spoken to Mike Howard into a recorder but denied it involved any questioning or that she had spoken longer then ten minutes (in fact Howard and Kunkel of the Secret Service interviewed Marguerite, taped and transcribed, about two hours), and suggested that she had been taped without her knowledge. Marguerite claimed in that interview not only that Marina was in on the plot to assassinate JFK but so were Ruth Paine and the two Secret Service agents protecting and interviewing her, Howard and Kunkel.
Just to give a little context to citing Marguerite as evidence of Ruth Paine's alleged malfeasance.
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
No, sir, I do not. So I sat there approximately 3 hours. And I never did get to see Lee.
So at 5:30--then Robert came in. And he was questioned by the FBI. - Mr. Rankin.
- Were you there when he was questioned?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
No, sir.
And I will state now emphatically that I have never been questioned by the FBI or the Secret Service never, gentlemen. If they can produce my voice or anything, they can produce it.
So then I was escorted into the office where Marina and Mrs. Paine was. And, of course, I started crying right away, and hugged Marina. And Marina gave me Rachel, whom I had never seen. I did not know I had a second grandchild, until this very moment. So I started to cry. Marina started to cry. And Mrs. Paine said, "Oh, Mrs. Oswald, I am so glad to meet you. Marina has often expressed the desire to contact you, especially when the baby was being born. But Lee didn't want her to."
And I said, "Mrs. Paine, you spoke English. Why didn't you contact me?" - Mrs. Oswald.
-
She said Marina didn't know how to get in touch with me.
She said, "Well, because of the way they lived, he lived in Dallas, and came home to my home on weekends. I didn't feel like I wanted to interfere."
And she acted as--excuse me, gentlemen. but this is very, very emotional. - The Chairman.
- That is all right.
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
So the FBI agent took us to the Six Flags.
I was never questioned by the Secret Service or the FBI at Six Flags. My son, in my presence, was questioned and taped, and Marina was continuously questioned and taped. But I have never been questioned.
I had all the papers from the State Department, and all of my research from Lee's I say so-called defection. And I wanted them to have them. All the papers were at home.
I told them I thought I could save a lot of manpower, while they were getting the original papers, because I know that each department in the State Department had a reference on Lee, and I had the whole thing condensed, and by them having my papers, they could get the picture. They were not interested in any papers I had. They were not interested. - Mr. Rankin.
- Were you not questioned on November 22, 1963?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
No, sir. Here is what you may have on tape.
I insisted so much that they talked to me, because I had all this--that Mr. Mike Howard finally agreed--not 22d, though. - Mr. Rankin.
- This is Mr. Harlan Brown and Mr. Charles T. Brown?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- That is the two FBI agents, Mr. Brown, questioned me in the office. But all they wanted to know is how did I know my son was an agent, and how did I know that he had the money from the State Department. And I told them Congressman Wright knew, and that they would investigate Congressman Wright. That was a very short questioning. I mean I explained that before. I told them I wanted to talk to the FBI, and I did. And it was the two Mr. Browns, and there were two other men.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Then Mr. Howard was what date?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Mike Howard? Mike Howard was toward the end, because I was so persistent in them talking to me, that finally he decided he would put me on tape. But I do not consider this questioning. It was the date of the funeral--I remember now.
- Mr. Rankin.
- November 25th?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Was that the day of the funeral? If this was the day of the funeral--I can tell you why. He decided he would put me on tape. So I started to tell him about my having the papers, and Lee's defection. And then Robert came out of the room and was crying bitterly. I saw Robert crying.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Now, that questioning was a question and answer. You were questioned by the FBI agent, Mr. Howard--
- Mrs. Oswald.
- No, sir. I was just talking.
- Mr. Rankin.
- The Secret Service man?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Mr. Mike Howard. I was talking on tape.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Didn't he ask you questions?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
I don't recall him asking any questions. It could be. But I frankly do not recall him asking any questions. But it was a very short session. And that is the way I ended the tape. I said, "My thoughts have left me because I see my son crying bitterly."
That is the way I ended the tape. And it was a very short tape. I do not remember him questioning me. I think I started to tell my story. And that is the only time.
It was from my persistence that I got on tape just that little while. They did not want to hear anything from me. - Mr. Rankin.
- You don't think, then, that at that time there were questions and answers for about 28 pages taken from you?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
From me no, sir. Definitely not. If they have that, what they have is my talking, like I said, when I saw on television. They said--they were showing Lee's gun. And I was not watching television--I am getting snatches of it, and I said, "Now, how can they say, even though it is Lee's gun, that Lee shot the President. Even being his gun doesn't mean that he shot the President. Someone could have framed him."
If they have 28 pages of that, they have me doing that kind of talking, and had the room bugged, or whatever you want to say. But no, sir, I did not sit and testify. I swear before God 10 times I never have. And that is the point that has bothered me.
Even before Lee's defection no one came along to the house. I called Mr. John Fain in the FBI myself to make friends with him. If they have 20 pages of testimony--that is when they got it, my talking. They got it with a tape recorder going. But I did not, no, sir. - Mr. Rankin.
- Are you saying that the agent did anything improper, as far as Marina was concerned?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Now, what do you mean when you say improper?
- Mr. Rankin.
- Was there any improper relationship between them, as far as you know?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- No. I am saying--and I am going to say it as strongly as can--that I--and I have stated this from the beginning--that I think our trouble in this is in our own Government. And I suspect these two agents of conspiracy with my daughter-in-law in this plot.
- The Chairman.
- With who?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- With Marina and Mrs. Paine the two women. Lee was set up, and it is quite possible these two Secret Service men are involved.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Which ones are you referring to?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Mr. Mike Howard and the man that I did not--did not know the name, the man in the picture to the left. I have reason to think so because I was at Six Flags and these are just some instances that happened--I have much more stories to tell you of my conclusions.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes, but this leak--this could be the party involved in the assassination of the President--the high officials I am speaking of, I cannot pin it down to one sentence, gentlemen.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Well, you named the Secret Service men, two of them.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- That is right
- Mr. Rankin.
- Now, do you have anything that shows you that either of those men were involved in the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
I will answer that emphatically no. What I have stated is the way they treated me, sir. I elaborated the way these two men treated me--correct? I did that testimony yesterday.
So I have to consider these two men. I will put it that way. - Mr. Rankin.
- Let's consider Marina Oswald. Do you have anything that will show that she was involved in any conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- I feel like Marina is involved and also Mrs. Paine, yes.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Now, what do you have in that regard?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
All right--because Marina--now this I have said to Mr. Jack Lengett, who is a New York Times newspaperman a long time ago. And I was ashamed to say it to anyone else. And I didn't tell it to him for a long time.
The story yesterday at the Six Flags, when I said to you Marina shrugged me off, and the second time she shrugged me off. The second time she said-and I would not say it now unless I had told Mr. Jack Lengett-she said, "You no have job."
In other words, since Marina was being offered a home, then you go to--"You don't have job."
Before she was satisfied to take $863 and live with me. I was giving her my money and giving her my love. And then, "You no have job."
I am trying to show you the disposition of my daughter-in-law. I love her. But I am trying to show you that there is two sides. I told you how she hit the little girl with the comb. "Mama, I no need you, Mama. You don't have job." - Mr. Rankin.
- Why does that show she was involved in any conspiracy?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Because I am going to try to show there is discrepancies all along. She was not supposed to speak English. I testified that I, myself, questioned her for an FBI agent. I acted as interpreter. So Marina did know English and understand English. So that is a question.
- Mr. Rankin.
- I thought you said she spoke broken English.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Broken English. But she is not supposed to speak English at all, until now that she has learned English. That has been publicized over and over.
- Mr. Rankin.
- And you think she could understand English fluently?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes, sir. I also told you when she lived with me that month in my home, how we conversed and talked. And yet the impression is that Marina came here and didn't speak English at all.
- Mr. Rankin.
- How does that show she conspired 'to assassinate the President?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
Because Marina now is not happy. Marina was very happy, I explained to you, the month she was with me in the beginning that they had rented this house. And then Marina made friends, very, very many friends. And Marina became discontented with Lee. Lee could not give her the things she wanted, what he told her about America. And Marina now has become discontented with me. I don't mean now--I mean at the Six Flags.
Mama always had a big heart. I quit a job to help these children, and that is perfectly all right. That is my nature.
But then, when she has somebody else, you are pushed aside.
I am trying to show this. - Mr. Rankin.
- What else is there now in regard to Marina that caused you to think she conspired to kill President Kennedy?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes--because everything is laid out in Mrs. Paine's home and Marina's home. The gun was in the garage.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Well, that doesn't make Marina do it, does it?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
No, but Marina told the police that the gun was there the night before. She saw the gun in the garage the night before. She didn't see Lee take it that morning. But she made a statement that she saw the gun the night before.
The pictures of Lee with the rifle came from that home. If Lee is going to assassinate the President or anybody else, is he going to have photographs laying all around with the gun? No, sir.
And there is too much evidence pointing to the assassination and my son being the guilty one in this particular house.
All through the testimony, sir, everything has come from this particular house. And so I am a thinking person, I have to think. - Mr. Rankin.
- Why does that show that Marina had anything to do with the conspiracy?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
Well, we are speculating, let's say. Marina is not happy. Lee can't give her any money and things. And she has made friends with these Russian folks that have cars and homes. And they are not happy because this Russian girl doesn't have anything. They are not happy about that.
And I am trying to show the disposition of the girl.
I love my daughter-in-law even now. Believe me, it is a sore spot to have to say this. But I have to face these facts of what I know. - Mr. Rankin.
- You realize it is a very serious charge.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes, sir. And it is also a serious charge that my son is the assassin of President Kennedy.
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
You, yourself, yesterday said that she [Marina] testified that I told her to tear up the picture. God give me the grace--I did no such thing. My testimony is true.
So now she has lied there, I have found out.
And every evidence of any importance has come from this house. I have to face that. - Mr. Rankin.
- What else do you have that shows that she had any part in the conspiracy to assassinate the President?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes. I am under the impression that probably she I think Lee is an agent. I have always thought that, and I have as much circumstantial evidence that Lee is an agent, that the Dallas police has that he is a murderer, sir.
- Mr. Rankin.
- What do you base that on?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Well, I am going to tell my story. I have it all there. That is what I base it on.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Can you tell us in summary?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- No, sir, I don't think I want to tell it to you that way, because I cannot, almost.
- Mr. Rankin.
- That is a very serious charge, that he was an agent, too.
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
Well, fine. So all right.
If I feel that way, sir, don't I have the right, the American way, to speak up and to tell you what I feel? Isn't that my privilege? - Mr. Rankin.
- Yes. But can't you tell us what you base it on?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes, sir, I will, as I go along, sir.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Is that the only way you can tell it?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- I don't see how I can say to you I know he is an agent, and I have papers. I want to tell the whole story. I still have more papers. I have documents that I know you do not have, sir.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Have you told us all that you know that would bear on your claim that Marina Oswald was--
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Had a part in it.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Had a part in it or conspired to assassinate the President?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
Yes, sir--I cannot prove it. And I cannot prove Lee is an agent. I cannot prove these things.
But I have facts that may lead up to them. I cannot prove it, because if I did we would not be having this Commission, sir. - Mr. Rankin.
- And you are saying possibly Marina was involved?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
Well, exactly what I am trying to say. If I had proof, sir, I would give the proof in an affidavit and this case would be closed, like Mr. Wade said.
But I have as much right to my way of thinking as Mr. Wade has. - Mr. Rankin.
- You are saying that possibly the Secret Service agents were involved, too? You don't have any proof of that?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
That is exactly what I have been trying to say. I have told you how I was treated, which has even me cause for this particular way of thinking--because I believe that my son is innocent. And I think that is the purpose of this Commission, is to hear all witnesses and arrive at a conclusion. Am I not right, gentlemen?
So this is my way of thinking. So grant me my way of thinking. If I am wrong, fine. But you may learn something. - Mr. Rankin.
- You think that shows there was a conspiracy?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
I am wondering and questioning why a call is necessary, a call, when they had contacted-and I am showing you what I have here. don't see any necessity of the State Department to call the International Rescue Committee.
And, gentlemen, you have a copy of this--Lee will not be helped.
I would like to know who called the International Rescue Committee from the State Department-yes, sir, I would. - Mr. Rankin.
- Yes, but you don't think that shows there is a conspiracy?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Well, no--now. Mr. Rankin, don't pin me down everything I say to the word conspiracy. I am trying to analyze a whole condensed program of things that are not correct. I am telling you about this. It could be just a simple thing, that he called. But I would like. to know who called when it wasn't necessary to make a call, and Lee was not going to get the money. Read the letter.
- Mr. Rankin.
- The reason I ask you about the conspiracy is because that is such a serious charge. And, as you say, if you could prove that, that would decide everything around here.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- That is right. And I am going to see if I cannot show you these things.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Mrs. Oswald, do you have any problem about that being your voice on the tape?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
No, sir, but I think probably the rest of it is my voice. I had a news conference at the Fort Worth Press Club at Fort Worth, Tex., that I was on tape for 2 hours.
Now, here is what--this is probably a little over 10 minutes to hear "Pardon me, you will have to excuse me." And there was a lot of break there. That is exactly 10 minutes. I have testified that at the Inn of Six Flags I talked for about 10 minutes and then I stopped because my son was crying, and I still say I testified for 10 minutes approximately at the Inn of Six Flags.
I had a press conference at the Fort Worth Press Club, that can be verified that I talked for over 2 hours that I was on tape. I was sitting on a desk with many, many reporters because this was when it just happened, and we had a lot of reporters, and in the back of me was a man, and everything I said was on this tape, and it was over 2 hours that I talked at this press club. - Mr. Rankin.
- Did you say the things that you say here?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes.
- Mr. Rankin.
- In answer to these questions?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes, and all through here is my story, yes, sir.
- Mr. Rankin.
- At the press club?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes, sir. I talked for 2 hours.
- Mr. Rankin.
- And you didn't say it to this agent?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- I said, and I am going to continue to say this, that I had approximately 10 minutes interview at the Inn of Six Flags, and then the telephone rang and Robert came out and started crying. and I said I see my son crying so now all my thoughts have left me and I was not interviewed any further at the Inn of Six Flags, sir.
- Mr. Rankin.
- On this tape you heard a little child talking, didn't you?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes, that is right.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Now, was there a little child like that at this----
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes, June was at the Inn of the Six Flags and if I am as smart as they are and if they are as smart as I am, there could be a little child crying all during the rest of the testimony.
- Mr. Rankin.
- I see, but there wasn't a little child at the place where you gave your press conference?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
No, but I am not familiar with--but couldn't a tape be added and spliced and couldn't a child voice be put in? I am just saying. because I have said before and I am saying now I was taped for about 10 minutes, just where this business came in was exactly 10 minutes, "Pardon me," now I spoke for over two and a half hours at the Fort Worth Press Club and was taped there.
What they can do with that tape, I don't know. - Mr. Rankin.
- Who asked you the questions when you were answering them at the Fort Worth Press Club?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Now, it was not in this sequence, answer and questions. So, I am saying, I do not know how they can get my voice and do the tape and answering questions for the rest, but gentlemen, I am not out of my mind and I have said this over and over publicly, that I have never been interviewed, answer and question, but for about 10 minutes at the Inn of the Six Flags.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Mr. Chairman, then I would like to go down about 5 or 6 minutes more maybe and see what it sounds like and the background if we play for just a few minutes.
- The Chairman.
- All right.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Would you drop down for another 5 minutes? Skip about 5 minutes, please.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- After you start may I say something else?
- Mr. Rankin.
- Yes.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- All of this here I have said and also said in my home and I have testified that there was a tape recorder in my home brought in by Mr. Max Phillips, Mr. Rankin. Why can't--I don't know anything about tape but it can be spliced and edited and so forth, that much I know because when I have talked for reporters, they don't use everything I say. They splice.
- Mr. Rankin.
- But you recognize, Mrs. Oswald, it would be quite a Job to splice in each one of those questions.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Well, the assassination of the President of the United States and a scapegoat for it would be quite a job, it would be worth while, yes, sir, I realize that.
- Mr. Rankin.
-
Let's try a little more.
(Transcription played.) - Mr. Rankin.
- Do you want to say anything more about this?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
Yes, I do. I haven't gone through all of this. I have made the statement over and over that my conversation was stopped. It was approximately a 10-minute conversation and it was stopped with the remark "I see my son crying. All my thoughts have left me."
Is that remark in this any place? - Mr. Rankin.
- I don't recall that it is.
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
Well, we will have to recall, because this, I have stated and was said and that is when 1 stopped the conversation at the Inn of the Six Flags. Robert came out crying because he couldn't get a minister and I said. "I see my son crying, now all my thoughts have left me," and the interview stopped at the Inn of Six Flags which I have testified was approximately 10 minutes.
Now, sir, there was a microphone in my home. This is not news to anybody. I have said this over and over and over. The ordinary layman by now knows my whole story, Chief Justice Warren. There was Mr. Max Phillips who had a microphone in my home. I testified on tape for over 2 hours at--talked at the Fort Worth Club, which would be, it is the same story over and over, I have told you all the same story that you already have here. - The Chairman.
- Yes, but it wasn't the same man interrogating you at this place as it was at this hotel, was it?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- About now--I don't know if this is the same man on the whole tape because I haven't listened to it. No, no one interrogated me at the Fort Worth Press Club, sir. I talked, there was an open press.
- The Chairman.
- But it is the same voice we are hearing now asking you questions as at the beginning of this tape, isn't it?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- That is correct. I have just stated, since this is a very big operation, that this could be edited and this man's voice put on there. This I know, because the radio stations called me and they edited what I do. Isn't this possible, that this could be edited, and that this man asked the questions and then my voice be put in. It would be a big job but I am asking isn't that possible? I swear that I have never had answers and questions of this sort, gentlemen.
- The Chairman.
-
Shall we turn over about 10 minutes more and see if the same voices are in it there?
(Transcription played.) - Mrs. Oswald.
-
I am not sure but I think it was possible it was an editor that he put me on there.
(Transcription played.) - The Chairman.
- Well, Mrs. Oswald, those are the same voices.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- That is Mr. Mike Howard's voice, yes, sir, I recognize his voice, yes, sir.
- The Chairman.
- And that is your voice?
- Mrs. Oswald.
- That is my voice.
- The Chairman.
- Yes.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- But I am not going to vary from my story.
- The Chairman.
- Yes, all right.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- That is an interview just 10 minutes at the Inn of Six Flags and that was the only time when going to the courthouse and asked for the FBI of Lee getting the money to come home from the State Department and Congressman Wright knew about it and they left and they didn't even come back and talk to me, sir, yes, sir.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Play just the last part.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- The last 25 minutes.
- Mr. Rankin.
-
These last remarks that we listened to were on page 13.
(Transcription played.) - The Chairman.
- Those are the same two voices, Howard's voice and your voice.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Yes, I say those are the two same voices, Mr. Mike Howard's voice, yes, sir.
- Mr. Rankin.
- That is on page 21 of the transcript. Mr. Chairman, do you think there is any need for any more?
- The Chairman.
-
I don't see any need for going any further with it.
Mrs. Oswald says she didn't have this interview, these questions were not asked of her and these answers given but she does identify the voices as being hers and all we have is her word, and this tape, and the transcription at the present time. So for the moment, I suppose we will just have to leave it where it is.
I don't see any other answer to it. - Mrs. Oswald.
- All right.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Well, I have explained that I am speculating, that I have all these documents, that some of them don't make sense. That is what I am trying to tell you. I mentioned that before.
- Mr. Rankin.
- You are not trying to say to the Commission that you have the proof that there was a conspiracy?
- Mrs. Oswald.
-
I have emphatically stated that I do not have the proof, because if I had the proof I would have an affidavit and give you gentlemen the proof. I made that clear two or three times. I wish I did have the proof, sir.
I think I said yesterday--it doesn't surprise me that there may be someone in our State Department or some official who would have part in this. He is a human being just like we are. He may have a title, but that doesn't make him a man back of the title. - Mr. Dulles.
- What is this conspiracy now, Mr. Rankin? Is this the conspiracy to do away with the President, or is this a different conspiracy?
- Mr. Rankin.
-
The conspiracy I was asking about was the conspiracy, she said, about the assassination of President Kennedy.
And she said that it involved the two Secret Service agents and her daughter-in-law and her son. That is the one I was asking about. - The Chairman.
- And Mrs. Paine.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- And Mrs. Paine. I feel like the facts have come from this particular source.
- Mr. Rankin.
- Now, as I understand she says now that she is speculating as to that being a possibility.
- Mrs. Oswald.
- Well, now, Mr. Rankin, I have not changed my testimony, if you are implying that. I may not have put it in a position you understood. because as I say, I certainly did not mean to imply that I had proof, because if I had proof I would not be sitting here taking all my energy and trying to show you this little by little. I would have had an affidavit and show you the proof. So if you want to call it speculation, call it speculation. I don't care what you call it. But I am not satisfied in my mind that things are according to Hoyle. And I believe that my son is innocent. And I also realize that my son could be involved. But I have no way of knowing these things unless I analyze the papers that I have, sir.
-
3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:
Greg, he is clearly mentioned in one of the quote sections, which is why I raised the topic recently, it was of interest to me. TBH I thank Larry and others for their input.
My apologies, I see it now.
-
More on Scoggins' witness testimony of the Tippit killer
Curtis Craford was confused with Oswald by many witnesses unrelated to the Tippit killing. Therefore the notion that multiple witnesses who had no prior acquaintance with Oswald or Craford, seeing the killer for a few moments for the first time, then at police lineups picking out Oswald as the one they thought looked like the killer, is not so difficult to understand if the killer was Craford.
Where Craford comes into the picture is he later told Peter Whitmey he had been a hitman before being in Dallas Sept-Nov 1963. The killer of Tippit went to the Texas Theatre to kill Oswald after killing Tippit, per reconstruction of movements and reasons for those movements. That someone wanted Oswald dead, evidence Ruby Sunday morning. Craford, self-confessed hitman, arrives to Dallas in the runup to the assassination and is employed by Ruby and lives at the Carousel Club.
Craford supposedly had an alibi but it is not a very strong alibi--his alibi was Andy Armstrong at the Carousel Club. Also Ruby. They said he was indoors there when everybody else was out watching the presidential parade one block away. This is the same Ruby who killed Oswald Sunday morning.
Although many witnesses thought Craford they had seen had been Oswald in the aftermath of the assassination, to which those witnesses who identified Oswald as the Tippit killer might add a few more, there are small differences in physical description between Oswald and Craford that resonate with Craford better than Oswald. Just looking at witness Scoggins...
Oswald had light- or medium-brown hair whereas Craford may have had darker brown hair.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the color of his hair?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. It was light; let's see, was it light or not--medium brown, I would say.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Medium brown, I would say--now, wait a minute. Now, medium brown or dark.
Mr. BELIN. Medium brown or dark hair?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.Another difference was Oswald was very light complexion, whereas Craford, though also a white man, was a little darker complexion. The FBI physical description of Craford in Dec 1963 has him as "medium" (not "light") complexion (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=205). A slightly darker complexion of the Tippit killer (though still a white man) is a detail that runs through several witnesses. Benavides who saw the Tippit killer--he probably had the closest or best look at the killer of any witness--said the Tippit killer was "a little darker than average" complexion. Benavides also was clear on another detail, that the back of the killer's head--and Benavides got a good look from only feet away--had a block cut. The back of Oswald's head, as so many familiar photos show, was a tapered cut not block cut. If Benavides was correct on this detail and there is no reason he would not have been, Oswald is excluded as the killer right there on that point alone. The FBI color photo of Craford from a side view taken in Dec 1963 however, seems to show a block cut although that is not quite clear in the photo. But back to Scoggins and complexion of the Tippit killer:
Mr. BELIN. Was he a Negro or a white man?
Mr. SCOGGINS. White, light complected, not real brown.(Would one say Oswald was any brown?)
Another difference was Oswald was more slender than Craford. Oswald was 5'9" and about 131-140 pounds. Craford was slightly shorter, 5'7-1/2 or 5'8" yet weighed a little more, 150 pounds according to the FBI Dec 1963 physical description of Craford. This means whereas Oswald was slender or almost skinny, Craford would be slightly shorter and more average, not as slender as Oswald was routinely described. (Compare Acquila Clemons' description of the Tippit killer gunman as "short and kind of chunky".)
Mr. BELIN. Was he fat, average build or thin?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No, he was slender; not real slender, but you know--
Mr. BELIN. Was he wearing glasses or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No.Craford not being quite as slender as Oswald corresponds also to the near-white light-gray jacket of the killer found abandoned by the Tippit killer, CE 162, which not only had in it an old dry cleaning ticket that extensive investigation by the FBI could not identify with any dry cleaning establishment in Dallas or New Orleans, but was size "M" (Medium) whereas Oswald always wore size "S" (Small) so far as known. This difference in jacket size would be governed more by weight/chest measurement than by a 1-2" difference in height, that is, the Tippit killer's jacket size corresponds better to Craford than to Oswald.
Another difference was Craford was 22 years old and looked a little younger than Oswald who was 24. Although Scoggins at a police lineup Sat eve identified Oswald as the killer he had seen--in company with so many other Dallasites who post-assassination thought they had seen Oswald when really they had seen Craford--when the FBI showed Scoggins photos, Scoggins apparently did not pick out Oswald correctly from photos, and notice the reason:
Mr. BELIN. Sometime later, after the lineup, did any of the police officers show you with a picture of anyone and ask you if you could identify him?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was an FBI man or a Dallas policeman or a Secret Service agent?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was an FBI or a Secret Service.
Mr. BELIN. What did he ask you and what did you tell him?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He gave me some pictures, showed me several pictures there,, which was, some of them were, pretty well resembled him, and some of them didn't, and they looked like they was kind of old pictures, and I think I picked the wrong picture. I am not too--
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you and what did you say to him, if you remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I don't really--I know he showed me his credentials.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say to you something like "These are pictures we have of Lee Harvey Oswald"? Did he use that name in front of you, or did he say, "Here are some pictures. See if you can identify them"--if you remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I don't remember, but after I got through looking at them and everything, and I says, I told them one of these two pictures is him, out of this group he showed me, and the one that was actually him looked like an older man than he was to me. Of course, I am not too much on identifying pictures. It wasn't a full shot of him, you know, and then he told me the other one was Oswald.
Representative FORD. Had you narrowed the number of pictures from more than two to two?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Representative FORD. In other words, they showed you pictures of how many people altogether, how many different people, your best estimate?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I would say 4 or 5.
Representative FORD. And you narrowed the number of 4 or 5 down to 2?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Down to two; yes.And so Craford, recent hire of Jack Ruby (perhaps at the request of some out-of-town mobster for all we know), is a match in a number of ways with the Tippit killer.
A few hours after the Tippit killing Craford fled Dallas sometime in the morning of Sat Nov 23, hitchhiking (that is how Craford said he made this trip) to Chicago and Michigan without saying goodbys for no clear reason. Ruby and others picked up Craford (who had no car)--supposedly with no idea that Craford would be taking flight from Dallas a couple hours later--at the Carousel Club around 4-5 am Sat Nov 23. A "revolver in a paper bag" was found later that morning by a citizen in downtown Dallas, several blocks away from the Carousel Club in the direction a car would drive to take Craford to the nearest interstate highway headed north. The revolver in the paper bag was an exact match to the kind of murder weapon that killed Tippit, .38 Special. Who tosses a revolver out of a car window in the middle of the night except to ditch it because it has been used in a crime or homicide? The only homicide in the area in the previous hours was the Tippit killing. A killer ditches the murder weapon because in case of being stopped or belongings searched does not want the murder weapon found on his person or property or traceable. That snub-nosed .38 Special in the paper bag was the murder weapon of the Tippit killing and it is a perfect match in time and location to having been tossed from a car by Craford leaving town after committing that murder.
What are the chances that the fingerprints taken from the Tippit cruiser in the two exact positions with respect to that cruiser the killer was witnessed, were fingerprints of the Tippit killer and, if checked, those fingerprints (which have been excluded as coming from Oswald) would match to Craford?
I say: pretty darn good.
-
On 5/11/2022 at 1:49 PM, Larry Hancock said:
Given that this same topic comes up over and over and over again in threads here I'm just going to post some of my own commentary on it for reference...take a look at the material I cite in the blog posts and make your own decision - and in addition to posting this here previously it has been shareed with many of those who have researched and written on Souetre:
https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/jean-souetre/
https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2018/12/12/mystery-solved/
Larry H., my deepest sympathies. You labor to set out facts, as clear as can be, and it makes no difference.
This discussion has proceeded without anyone seeming to notice that the lead article in the opening post has nothing to do with the title, no mention of Souetre.
Once ideas with appealing stories get started, they can morph and expand and live forever, unmoored to any need for factual underpinning. These are what may be called "zombie ideas" in scholarship, whose only basis for continued existence is self-referential citation of themselves.
-
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I care, because his being an Lner indicates that he uses poor judgement. And I care because he has shown himself to be a prevaricator. (See Chapter 12C of Pat Speer's website.)
I meant in terms of relevant to the fingerprint data of the Tippit cruiser, the topic at hand. Do you have something to say concerning the fingerprints?
I do not agree with this business of a long list of persons who cannot be footnoted or cited for specific data or some discussion of a specific topic on the grounds that they are "discredited" because of something xyz over somewhere else on something else. That is not how scholarship gets done well. A better approach might be to pick and choose what is good wherever it occurs, and give credit for that.
-
More on the Tippit cruiser fingerprints (= Tippit killer fingerprints)
I do not understand why there has not been more interest or attention given to the importance of the Myers 2013 report on the fingerprints left at the right front door and right front fender of the Tippit cruiser, in the exact positions where the killer of Tippit was according to witnesses. The Tippit killer first talked to Tippit through the window of the right passenger side leaning into the cruiser, and then went around the right front of the cruiser shooting and killing Tippit. In one of the most important and non-heralded findings reported by Myers 2013, the fingerprints in both of those locations were newly identified as having come from the same one individual, not multiple persons. This weighs in favor of those prints coming from the killer of Tippit, as opposed to by accident from some other person.
There is a case for exoneration of Oswald in the Tippit killing and there is separately and distinctly a case for Curtis Craford as the leading suspect in the Tippit killing, independently of the fingerprints. It should be a no-brainer to have those fingerprints compared to fingerprints of Curtis Craford. Craford had a criminal record in Oregon so prints of Craford should be obtainable. Find three (not just one) of the top names in the field of latent fingerprint examination; agree up-front formally in advance that their findings will be public and published under their names whatever their findings are; that they will conduct their examinations independently, blinded to and without consultation with one another; and that they will be compensated for their services irrespective of findings. Get it done professionally, publish the results however they turn out. Why has this not been done already? Just not of interest to anyone here?
To my knowledge no one has pointed to the importance of pursuit of further information from these fingerprints based on the new developments reported in Dale Myers, With Malice, the 2013 edition, other than me. (I do not know whether Myers reported the Lutz findings in the earlier 1998 first edition of With Malice; I do not have that edition to check. Bugliosi's exhaustive Reclaiming History in 2007 has no mention of the Myers/Lutz fingerprint information.) My comments about the importance of Myers' report on those fingerprints, over past months, have elicited almost no response or reaction. Ho-hum? Its only the Tippit killer's fingerprints which have been confirmed a non-match to Oswald and would match to the true killer if checked. Would that be of interest to anyone?
For any who need brought up to speed on this and do not have the Myers volume I quote below Myers' discussion of this data. Focus not on Myers' interpretation of the data, but rather focus on the data itself which Myers obtained and reported. (And let there be no irrelevant attacks on Myers. Who cares that he is LN, he has written the most comprehensive and authoritative book in existence relevant to the Tippit killing, with all the primary data, photos, documents, witness interviews, accurate footnotes, the works--all in one volume, well worth the $65 current price on amazon for 864 pages hardbound; a kindle edition is available for $2.99 [https://www.amazon.com/Malice-Harvey-Oswald-Murder-Officer/dp/0966270983]). Myers:
"At about 1:40 p.m. [on Fri Nov 22, 1963] Sergeant W.E. 'Pete' Barnes of the Dallas Police Crime Scene Search Section, arrived at the scene of Tippit's murder and began dusting the passenger side of the officer's squad car for fingerprints.
"'I was told that the suspect [who] shot Tippit had come up to the right side of the car, and there was a possibility that he might have placed his hands on there,' Barnes testified. Barnes dusted areas just below the top of the right door and along the right front fender. When asked whether any prints were found, Barnes told the Warren Commission, 'There were several smear prints. None of value.'
"For this study, crime lab photos of the fingerprints Sergeant Barnes found on Tippit's squad car were obtained from Dallas police archives and compared with Oswald's fingerprint cards by a twenty-six-year latent fingerprint expert. Herbert Lutz, senior crime scene technician for Wayne County, Michigan, examined the prints taken from Tippit's patrol car and was of the opinion that one person was probably responsible for all of them. The smears obtained from the top of the right-side passenger door were of less value, although Lutz felt that the ridges and furrows were consistent with fingerprints found on the right front fender.
"There was sufficient detail in the fingerprints taken from the right front fender to make a reasonable comparison with the fingerprint cards of Lee Harvey Oswald. A fingerprint from Tippit's patrol car, identified as the right-middle index finger, was compared with the right-middle finger from one of Oswald’s fingerprint cards.
"Lutz immediately noted a difference in the spacing between ridges. The prints taken from Tippit's car showed furrows that were wide, while Oswald's fingerprint furrows were much narrower. In addition, the number of ridges and location of the bifurcations--or 'forks' in the patterns--were different. In short, the fingerprints taken from Tippit's patrol car were not Oswald's. It should be noted that police removed the prints on the 'possibility' that the suspect had put his hands on the car when he came over to talk with Tippit. That might not have happened.
"Jimmy Burt, who was a block away from Tippit's car, said the assailant 'put his hands on the right side of the car as he leaned down and talked in the window.' However, eyewitness Jack Tatum specifically recalls that as he drove past, the man speaking to Tippit was leaning over and 'had both hands in his zipper jacket.'
"So whose fingerprints are they? At least four minutes elapsed before the first officer arrived at the murder scene, and nearly eight minutes before police arrived in force. By then, a large crowd had gathered. Several witnesses are known to have handled Tippit's revolver, sat in his car, and used the police radio. There were plenty of opportunities for a number of people to have touched the police car before it was secured." (With Malice, 336-340)
According to the report of Herbert Lutz to Myers, the fingerprints from the right front fender of the Tippit cruiser were from fingers of a right hand. If the fingerprints were from the killer this might be reconstructed as he shot from a weapon held in his left hand, then either crouched or placed his right hand on the fender for balance to keep from stumbling, after firing the shots into Tippit and turning around to go back around the same side of the cruiser.
A witness of the Tippit killer, cab driver William Scoggins who saw the killer run by him, gun in hand, an estimated twelve feet away from him, said the killer had the gun in his left hand.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Mr. BELIN. Did the pistol appear to be--did he appear to be doing anything with the pistol or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. He had it, holding it, in his left hand in a manner that the barrel was up like this, and the stock was down here, curved back in here.
Mr. BELIN. Did it look like the gun had been flipped open at all or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I wouldn't say.
Mr. BELIN. You don't know?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No; I don't.
Mr. DULLES. You said he had it in his left hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see where his right hand was?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was kind of running, kind of like this, in this manner. -
On May 10 in a new article announced to the Education Forum, an accusation was posted to the effect that on the weekend of the assassination Ruth Paine refused to contact the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Oswald or contact her husband to do so (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27756-the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/; https://gil-jesus.com/?page_id=4945). Gil Jesus:
"Even if she could not contact Abt, why didn't Mrs. Paine, as a member of the Civil Liberties Union, contact that organization for help or at least contact her husband to do so?" . . . Ruth Paine had no intention of helping Lee Oswald."
This accusation is based on no evidence nor was any claimed.
Background: Marguerite Oswald talked to Ruth Paine late Friday night Nov 22, after their return from being questioned at the Dallas police station, about her son lacking legal counsel and her concern over lack of money to afford an attorney. Ruth, who in the past hours following the assassination had been traumatized by police illegally invading her home and taking her belongings out of her house without permission; responsible for two toddlers during the turmoil; whose attention was focused on being with and supporting Marina in those hours . . . had not seen Lee one moment that afternoon or evening. For all we know Marguerite's concern that Lee have a lawyer may have been the first moment that topic first came to Ruth's attention. The Dallas police did not allow family members access to Lee Friday evening and at Lee's arraignment for the murder of officer Tippit that Fri evening Lee was without legal counsel and the judge unconscionably did not appoint legal counsel for Lee, but there was no way Ruth could have known these details at the time of her talk with Marguerite back home later that night.
Ruth responded by trying to reassure Marguerite that the ACLU would see to it that Lee would have legal counsel even if he could not afford it.
Gil Jesus in his article claims Ruth Paine, after saying those consoling words to Marguerite Friday evening on the first occasion that the topic of a lawyer for Lee even came up to Ruth, then intentionally and malevolently refused to contact the ACLU, making Ruth Paine look like a horrible person from this accusation for which, to repeat, there is no evidence it is true.
That is different from what Michael Paine testified:
Mr. DULLES. There were no conversations that took place that evening [Fri Nov 22] that are pertinent to our investigation so far as you know?
Mr. PAINE. Quite soon I called the ACLU. There were reports, yes, I think at that time, that Friday night, Marguerite was saying he wasn't receiving counsel, and so I called the ACLU to see if there was anybody there checking to see if this was true, and apparently a delegation, this was Saturday morning, and apparently a delegation had been sent.
This means Ruth told Michael of Marguerite's concerns late Friday night, and Michael called the ACLU Saturday morning and was told the ACLU was on it. (In fact a delegation from the ACLU attempted to see Lee but the Dallas Police turned ACLU away without seeing Lee on the grounds that Lee had made no specific request to see them, apparently because police had not told Oswald ACLU was there asking to see him. Neither Michael nor Ruth Paine would have known these details any more than they would have known that Lee had not had a court-appointed attorney provided to him at the time of his arraignment for the Tippit killing.)
I pointed this out in a comment to Gil Jesus in a comment on his topic thread but it did no good. He answered other comments but ignored mine, no effect, no correction in the article. His article does not disclose to readers Michael Paine's testimony above.
Ruth Paine is routinely smeared in this way in this community and in print publications, in which accusations fabricated out of thin air are asserted as if facts. When error is pointed out some correct, others do not.
-
13 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:
The assassination can be viewed through the lens of what we have learned from the Innocence Project and the 2009 NAS Study about the unreliability of forensic evidence. It is no longer acceptable to make sweeping assertions that a particular piece of evidence can be linked back to a weapon to the exclusion of no one weapon without referencing a probability of the match. and we also have to examine HOW the historical record was assembled (e/g. alot of witnesses were pressured to change their testimony before they testified (lots of off-the-record interviews) and testimony was changed afterwards in FBI 302 reports, significant questions with chain of custody, etc).
As late as Feb. 24, 1964, U.S. News and World Report (one of the three major national weekly news magazines in America along with Time and Newsweek) is reported to have reported of the Warren Commission: "2/24/64 As for Oswald, the commission has found that almost all the evidence points to him as the killer. But the panel is not expected to say so in so many words. The final verdict is to be left to the public. Reason: There just is no positive proof. U. S. News & World Report, p. 52". (According to here: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White Files/Warren Commission-Subject/Oswald/Oswald%2C 1964.pdf.) It would be nice to know U.S. News and World Report's source on that, whether that was coming from inside the Warren Commission (almost had to be?). I have not seen the issue of the newsweekly itself.
-
A five-point road map to accomplishing a change of consciousness in America concerning the JFK assassination
The starting point is three planks around which can be mobilized agreement of 90% of CT adherents, focusing on Oswald's standing with respect to three cases:
· In the case of Tippit, exoneration with solution.
· In the case of JFK, exoneration without solution.
· In the case of Walker, reasonable doubt.
That is two exonerations and one reasonable doubt. The roadmap starts with the Tippit case, exoneration with solution, that solution being a fingerprint match likely to confirm identification of Curtis Laverne Craford, then known as Larry Crafard, as the killer of Tippit. The five steps:
1. A true solution to the Tippit case: exoneration of Oswald and identification of the actual killer accepted in mainstream America. The way this is done is via technical and expert analyses of Dallas Police Department fingerprints of the killer of Tippit which were lifted from the right front passenger door and right front fender of the Tippit cruiser. The single individual who left those fingerprints in both of those locations—the killer of Tippit—has already been excluded as having been Oswald on the basis of a finding of non-match to fingerprints of Oswald. That is to say, these fingerprints already have exonerated Oswald as having been the killer (data at Myers, With Malice [2013 edn], 336-340; interpretation: “Critical to this is the prior issue” at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27754-the-jackets-as-exculpation-of-oswald-as-the-tippit-killer-an-analysis/). However who those fingerprints did come from—who was the killer of Tippit, was never identified from those fingerprints. A solution to the Tippit case is obtainable by commissioning fingerprint analyses with or without technical imaging assistance to determine an up-or-down confirmation or exclusion of a match of those fingerprints to Carousel Club employee Larry Crafard (Curtis Craford), the likely true killer of Tippit. (The Tippit killer’s fingerprints have never been compared to Craford’s fingerprints.) If the match is positive, this would be an historic watershed in impact, not only in establishing a solution to the Tippit case and reinforcing complete exoneration of Oswald in that case, but doing so in a way that would be newsworthy and deemed convincing by mainstream America familiar with the case: that the killer of Tippit was Craford not Oswald. Two other key points in this solution are identification of the murder weapon in the Tippit killing as the revolver found in a paper bag in downtown Dallas on the morning of Sat Nov 23 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48693#relPageId=10); “Critical to this is the prior issue” at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27754-the-jackets-as-exculpation-of-oswald-as-the-tippit-killer-an-analysis/), and a “gray then blue” analysis of the jackets worn by Oswald on Nov 22, 1963 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27754-the-jackets-as-exculpation-of-oswald-as-the-tippit-killer-an-analysis/). I have developed the arguments relative to each of these three points in what is probably the most substantial argument in existence for a non-Oswald solution to the Tippit case, provisionally written up in draft form in a series of posts starting here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27367-an-argument-for-actual-innocence-of-oswald-in-the-tippit-case/. If other parties took the lead in such a project and got the fingerprints analysis accomplished (I am in no position to initiate such myself and have no plans to do so), I could in a supporting role with or without coauthors further develop, rewrite and edit my material on the Tippit case into a monograph that would meet “Innocence Project” standards and could receive endorsement and backing on its major points from 90% of the CT community due to the clarity of the argument. These three points—the fingerprints; the murder weapon; the analysis of the jackets—are the foundation of this alternative solution to the Tippit case. A fingerprint match to Craford would be a pivotal breakthrough in the understanding of mainstream law enforcement, historians, and the public in America. A generally-recognized and accepted exoneration of Oswald in the Tippit killing in turn would be a game-changer in perception of the JFK assassination. The comparison of the fingerprints of the Tippit killer to fingerprints of Craford is the first step.
2. Exoneration of Oswald in the JFK assassination without solution of the case, and reasonable doubt in the Walker case, accepted in mainstream America. In this second stage these objectives, as stated, are established in the relevant disciplines in mainstream America. The way this is done in the Walker case is a focus around the issue of whether Walker staged the shot (not whether Oswald was involved which is not at issue if Walker staged the shot)—whether Walker was in the room when the shot was fired and were Walker’s light injuries self-inflicted—reasonable doubt. In the JFK case, mainstream exoneration of Oswald as shooter of JFK is accomplished by two things above all others: first, the momentum of mainstream exoneration of Oswald in the case of Tippit, and, second, identification of Prayer Man as Oswald. (Prayer Man is the name given to a figure in photos who is standing in the front doorway of the Texas School Book Depository in the moments of the assassination.) While there are other arguments favoring exoneration of Oswald in the JFK assassination, none have accomplished exoneration in the view of mainstream law enforcement experts and historians. That changes with Prayer Man, if mobilization of state-of-the-art technical and expert analyses can be bought to bear with the objective of determining an up-or-down confirmation or exclusion that Prayer Man is Oswald. Prayer Man as Oswald can be judged ca. 90% likely prior to up-or-down certainty or falsification. Other arguments for exoneration of Oswald as having been a shooter at JFK exist (lack of gunpowder residue on cheek/NAA; poor rifle shot and ability; lack of shooting practice; issues of preparation and motive; analysis of protestations of innocence). But the two big ones become the public awareness of exoneration in the case of Tippit, and confirmation that Prayer Man is Oswald if that is attained. In this focus the connection of Oswald to the rifle need not be contested since the issue is not whether the rifle came from Oswald but whether it was fired by Oswald. If expert and technical analysis established Prayer Man as Oswald at ca. 100% confidence that would be newsworthy and establish exoneration of Oswald in the shooting of JFK to mainstream America. The one serious objection to Prayer Man as Oswald, the failure of Buell Wesley Frazier to make that identification (Frazier appears looking in Prayer Man’s general direction a few feet away from him in one photo), is weak or indecisive in weight from several factors, one being that Frazier has been unable to remember or recognize or identify Prayer Man at all in his own response to the photos. This second stage of the roadmap—a mainstreamed recognition of exoneration of Oswald in the JFK assassination—is brought about by the means named, state-of-the-art technical and expert analysis of Prayer Man. (Exoneration of Oswald in the JFK assassination here means exoneration from being a shooter.)
3. Repudiation of Garrisonism including CT community formal exoneration of Clay Shaw, Ruth Paine, and Michael Paine. Restorations from the CT community of these three individuals to their good names and reputations with respect to the JFK assassination in formal and organized statement with expression of remorse for damage done. On three grounds. First, no advantage: expenditure of energy claiming these three were guilty adds nothing to the case for Oswald exoneration. Second, pragmatic downsides: the public thinks Clay Shaw is innocent in agreement with the trial outcome in that case, and that Garrison was not a good man in his methods. Reasonable mainstream America also will not accept the treatment of the Paines by CTs as justified or fair. And the third, stand-alone and most important reason: it is the right thing to do because they are innocent. Even if not all CTs will immediately agree on this (actual innocence of these three), with sufficient informed discussion most CTs can come to agreement that there is minimally reasonable doubt in favor of innocence of each of these three with respect to the JFK assassination such that they should be presumed innocent in public and in reputation since there is not a sufficient threshold of evidence to justify accusing them of malfeasance with respect to the JFK assassination. The reason for repudiating Garrisonism is because Garrisonism is not good or healthy. Garrisonism stands for poor critical thinking, poor judgment, and damage to innocent persons through witchhunts and lethal accusations on the basis of suspicion alone. Garrison on the JFK assassination should be repudiated no less than the repudiation of Senator Joseph McCarthy on domestic communism. Formal repudiation of Garrisonism by CT’s would be analogous to the major Lutheran bodies’ formal repudiation of the anti-semitism or anti-Jewishness of Luther. Garrisonism is not compatible with success of this roadmap to a change of consciousness in mainstream sectors of America concerning the JFK assassination. Yet this pragmatic reality pales in comparison to the moral reason, that repudiation of Garrisonism is the right thing to do. Formal repudiation with apology in an organized way from the CT community will enhance, not diminish, credibility with the American public, when combined with the impact of actual evidence of the nature cited in the Oswald exonerations in the Tippit and JFK cases.
4. A dues-paying, voting, national membership and lobbying organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for formal government recognition of an evidence-based finding of exoneration of Oswald of a shooting role in the JFK assassination. This is premised on the preceding three stages having been accomplished. The national lobbying organization will focus on exoneration of Oswald in the shooting of JFK without solution to the case--and to a lesser extent but also necessary, reasonable doubt in the Walker case (the reasonable doubt concerning whether Walker faked being a target of the shot and self-injured, that is, reasonable doubt that the shot fired into the Walker house was an attempted murder). The specific objective of the lobbying organization and the benchmark of its success will be when the US Government, speaking for the American body politic, states formal recognition of an evidence-based finding that Oswald is exonerated from the shooting of JFK, accompanied by a statement of support for the establishment of a Truth Commission by which an understanding of American history in the light of that development can be reassessed. All major policy actions or findings by the dues-paying, national membership lobbying organization should be ratified by vote of the membership, as a partial preventative to undue influence of hidden hands in process and outcome.
5. A Truth Commission set up formally by existing academic and professional guilds of American historians and law enforcement and forensic specialists. Formal studies and investigations will be conducted which may or may not succeed in solving the JFK assassination but will explore significance and implications of such findings that may come to light. Whether the JFK case is or is not solved to the satisfaction of the guilds of American historians and law enforcement specialists, revision in interpretation of American history in light of the exoneration of Oswald in the JFK assassination is processed. There can be input from outside the guilds for consideration by the guilds but the guilds decide, in the sense that this is how understanding of mainstream America is processed. The guilds' judgments and decision-making on these matters should not be subject to outside control or popular vote of the public, but at the same time should—must—involve plenary vote of the memberships of those guilds on endorsements of findings (not a small delegated number of deciders acting autonomously without ratification by vote of guild members). If the Truth Commission receives funding from the federal government (preferred) it must have formal independence from governmental control or direction (apart from progress-reporting protocols and ability to cut off money, this last option never to be exercised operationally to influence but only extraordinarily as a worst-case mechanism of resignation of support for cause [if that happened for unjust cause, funding to be replaced from private sector sources with the same hands-off independence policies]). The outcomes judged by the guilds of professional American historians and law enforcement bodies in turn will influence the writing of textbooks and the educating of present and future Americans. Nothing in this prevents individuals or groups from holding any other view, but this is how it gets done in an evidence-based way in mainstream America. Any arguments from CT’s going to proposed solutions to the JFK case need to be sufficiently convincing that they pass vetting by the guilds of American historians and crime investigation professionals at this stage. The reason why plenary votes of the guilds’ memberships are important is as a partial preventative to undue influence of hidden hands on shaping and outcome of investigations and findings.
What could go wrong in these five stages? Obviously there are many things that could go wrong since history is not predictable. Specifically there are two major checkpoints in this roadmap of an up-or-down evidential nature. The first is whether the fingerprints of the Tippit killer will match to Curtis Craford. And the second is whether technical analysis and study of Prayer Man will confirm or exclude a match to Oswald. Either of these could potentially go either way, and in terms of this roadmap a falsification in either one would effectively mean the roadmap would not succeed. But the chances if quantified are perhaps ca. 90% in each case that expert findings will confirm the falsifiable predictions in these two cases. There is also the possibility that despite the best technical and expert efforts, one or both of these cases could remain indeterminate, the least desirable outcome. For these reasons priority should be focused on bringing to bear state-of-the-art technical and expert knowhow with an objective of determination of accurate up-or-down decisive confirmation or falsification of each of the two predictions at issue.
-
You got it, gentleman Vince! Thanks!
-
1 hour ago, John Butler said:
I suppose Rose and Stovall imagined seeing a roll of film in the "light meter".
I don't think Stovall ever claimed what Rose claimed on that, even though Stovall was as much part of the Minox camera equipment finds as Rose. And Rose's claim of what you cite is first known fifteen years after the fact, and it is well known witnesses are fallible. In this case there is no need to remain endlessly in what-if conjectures since contemporary police photos tell the exact truth clearly that the object DPD sent to FBI indeed was a light meter.
-
Here is a photo from the Dallas Police Department archives of the Minox light meter that the FBI said it received from the DPD instead of the camera on the inventory list. (The photo find thanks to Jean Paul Ceulemans.) It looks like the same light meter in the DPD evidence photo taken before the items were sent to the FBI. I bet Rose's and Stovall's initials were on this item, and this was what Rose remembered marking.
Another DPD archives photo that Jean Paul sent me I am unable to post here because I get the over the kb limit error message. It is a photograph of two metal canisters on hinges open, one with a Minox roll of film in it. Another DPD photo shows the Minox film rolls loose outside the metal canisters. I bet Gus Rose's memory fifteen years later to HSCA of taking film "out of the camera" was a confusion of remembering taking film out of those canisters. It wasn't something Rose probably thought much about at the time when processing all that evidence, but then he has to after the fact reconstruct his memory defending himself and the DPD from making the mistake charged by the "disliked" FBI (disliked by DPD).
-
I totally agree Vince (and incidentally my "humorous" comment responding to your "humorous" potshot at me was not intended to apply to your Secret Service research work, where you are "the best").
That Mike Howard story of the address book with Oswald writing a list of four names he wanted to kill ... is just nuts. I have looked through the Oswald address book trying to reconstruct some mechanism of how he could have gotten that idea but a first problem is he cannot have seen the address book when he said he did because it was in the Dallas police station. Mike Howard says the address book was given to the Irving police from the Ruth Paine house. Mike Howard also claimed that Marina told them she saw Lee holding and aiming his rifle the evening before in the kitchen, without Lee noticing she saw him. (A story never before heard, and also not in the transcripts of the Secret Service interviews with Marina.)
I don't know what Mike Howard was up to.
And wasn't it a buddy of Mike Howard who was supposed to be a "fireman" borrowed for security when the Secret Service had the Oswald women sequestered, who was actually ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence)? And then Mike Howard of the Dallas Secret Service office, living locally, was suddenly no-notice reassigned effective immediately to Houston the next weekend (Nov 30-Dec 1), to do security for LBJ's daughter in college. What was that sudden transfer all about? Do you know?
-
12 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:
One of the elements in Minoxgate is Guy Rose.Is he right or wrong? He’s one or the other…..
If he’s right, he handled a Minox, opened it, saw (removed and re-inserted?) it’s film, and closed it. Maybe fondled and coveted it, it was an expensive item and no doubt a quality piece of kit. I know I’d like to see one close up. Then Fritz (booo,hisss) lets him to stick to his guns which is strange - he’s telling him he doesn’t have to toe the Feebie line? This IS the complicit 1960’s DPD we’re talking about.
If Guy Rose is wrong, then he imagined or mis-remembered the whole episode - in which case he needs a check up from the neck up - or he’s telling porkies. But to what end? Attention? Fame? To be inserted into history?
Mucho puzzlemento
I think it would fall into a familiar pattern. He makes an honest mistake, doesn't remember it, when called on it insists he did not make a mistake. People all the time will not admit mistakes. Refusal to admit a mistake one knows inside one might have made is common. "This is my story and I'm sticking to it". "To what end?" Why do people refuse to admit mistakes in daily life, at work, in the academic world, wherever? Some people just don't like to admit they were wrong. Remember how often we have heard Gus Rose quoted saying he was sure he took film out of the camera (therefore it could not have been a light meter)? This transcript may make that a little ambiguous.
Did he and Stovall actually initial the light meter? I notice Stovall never seemed to have taken a position on backing up Rose on the item being a camera instead of the light meter that FBI returned to Dallas saying that is what Dallas PD had sent.
-
On 5/12/2022 at 5:42 PM, Vince Palamara said:
It seems like your goal is to nitpick and debunk everything. I thought you were in cahoots with Parnell LOL
Maybe you can work a little harder on your reading comprehension issues going forward LOL.
-
6 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:
This sums up quite a number of personal conversations I've had about the case for the past two years. I know of at least two decent researchers who have all but quit doing anything with the case - a case they care about deeply and personally - because they have no interest in being the public target of the CIA Primacy crowd that rests atop of the hierarchy in the Kennedy assassination research community. It's an odd thing to observe when a community founded on the idea that "the establishment media needs to look into this with a much more open mind" is a community that has planted their flags into their own theories and refuses and refutes anything that doesn't support that flag. Anyone who disagrees is "a disinformationist," "untrusted," and the tiresome "discredited," while those who do agree with them are characterized as "careful researchers" who have done "valuable," "important," and "noteworthy" work. I continue to tell young (under 50 in this case... lol) researchers that anytime you read that someone has been "discredited," you've probably found a writer with a fragile ego who has to circle the wagons and destroy the outsiders to validate their own needed sense of importance. And yes, they'll use "limited hangout," as Pat pointed out," just as they'll use "discredited." Both phrases cause the same near-ripping of the optic nerve from the eye roll they deserve and usually describe the fragility of the descriptor better than its target. Well said, Pat.
S.T., I completely agree. Well said to you as well as Pat.
-
7 hours ago, David Lifton said:
My best recollection: Michael probably made clear that he did not believe Oswald shot JFK. (5/13/22 - 11:30 AM PDT)
Thanks David.
If that is Friday evening, I could see a juxtaposition of two things. Michael has no knowledge other than that Oswald has been arrested and is who police think did it. At that point the Dallas police are operating blind, they don't know how many others are involved or who, with Oswald. Therefore a third degree on Michael Paine, Michael refusing to incriminate Oswald beyond saying he doesn't know, Fritz getting increasingly furious, suspecting Michael may be holding out... the slap, but Fritz gets nothing out of Michael Paine (because there is nothing there to get). Same procedure with Wesley Frazier later that night. Trying to bully suspects into spilling beans on confederates, assume they are not telling all they know and try to break them.
But you are saying it may have went beyond Michael telling Fritz he didn't know, to actually telling Fritz he thought Oswald was innocent of shooting JFK. It does not quite make sense to me that Michael would have said that or had a firm position on Oswald's innocence, since he would have had no way of really knowing, and he was pretty rational in his thinking. Obviously if you are able to locate any tapes or contemporary notes of your interview with Michael Paine that would be of much interest. And I am looking forward to your book!
-
A detail I noticed on the Fri Nov 22 police list of property taken by police out of Ruth Paine's house that day: at the bottom of the list is typed: "Voluntarily given Dallas PD by Ruth Paine and Mrs. Oswald at Paine's residence, Irving, Texas 11/22/63" (below).
The Dallas Police Department had a rather elastic definition of the meaning of "voluntary", according to this account:
""Within minutes, the police were hauling off boxes of the Paines' and the Oswalds' belongings, while Ruth protested in vain. A neighbor, Dorothy Roberts, watched this front-lawn drama, which must have resembled an eviction, thought that she had never seen Mrs. Paine so angry." ("Marina and Ruth" [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/12/03/marina-and-ruth])
The only voluntary thing Ruth Paine did was invite the officers to step inside her front door so they could sit down inside and talk more easily. That was interpreted as consent to go through the house and take stuff.
-
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
It reminds me of that old joke. Upon entry into heaven a long-time CT asks God who killed JFK. God then looks him straight in the eye and says it was Oswald acting alone. The CT then says to himself "Huh, the conspiracy goes higher than I thought!"
The version I heard was three CT's went to heaven. They are told one of the perks of entering the Pearly Gates is they get to ask one question of the Almighty. The big moment arrives and they ask the bearded, aged Creator of the Universe, Who killed JFK? A pause, then the answer, "Well I've got a theory about that..."
-
21 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:
You would think haha! It seems everyone is fascinated with Doudna trying to say Oswald acted alone LOL
That's not true Vince. Do you seriously think that?
-
Good comments Pat. On the match of the photos with Oswald, three factors: first, all the photos are Michael Paine's early 1950s therefore not possible that Oswald is in an early 1950s photo of Michael Paine. Second, all the spitting-image matches of people in photos which are not true. My brother looks exactly like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and I have had a lot of fun with him with that over the years. Think of all the matches to the three tramps photos, people who see TSBD's Shelley passing out leaflets with Oswald in a photo in New Orleans, happy face on Mars, and etc. and etc.
And third, the assumption that the photo is genuine even though its sole claim to authenticity is it is published in the Weberman book along with other photos which are deemed authentic of Michael Paine's Minox.
On this third point, I noticed just now where Weberman gives the source of that photo. (I hope you are sitting down, for this rock-solid basis for an authenticity of a photo.)
"[Gerry] Hemming took the picture below with Oswald's Minox." (bottom of p. 11, followed by the photo p. 12, of Weberman, The Oswald Code [2014])
Well I guess that settles it! Its Oswald because Hemming himself took that photo of Oswald, and if you don't believe it just ask him, he'll tell you himself! (Hemming is deceased now actually but it doesn't matter--he was so full of BS.)
But seriously, notwithstanding how questionable the Weberman and Hemming book is in much else, I see no sign that any of the other photos are not authentic in that book, as distinguished from the hilarious and creative commentary Hemming offers on them.
So I'm back to authentic, Michael Paine, and therefore is not Oswald.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it! To quote Paul Hoch, it is my theory and it is mine 🙂 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dj_X3vexak.
Interview of Ruth Paine of Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, Dec 5, 1963
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
The Mary Ferrell Foundation site has posted 17 documents from the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, that is Dodd's subcommittee (https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=2123). One is a Dec 5, 1963, interview with Ruth Paine (see https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=219416). I have not seen this before now. Following are some points of interest from this early Ruth Paine interview: