Greg Doudna

I have something to say regarding the rifle order issue but first I have a question, simply as a request for information. For those who think Oswald never had a rifle, how is it explained that when police came to Ruth Paine's house after the assassination, in Marina's first known contact with law enforcement following the assassination, Marina, first words out of her mouth, when asked if there was a rifle in the house, told police that Lee had kept a rifle in the garage and showed police the blanket? This was before Marina was sequestered for questioning in the days ahead. Is there some notion that Marina was coerced or threatened into saying that? If so, would such hidden-hand coercing or threatening have occurred before or after the assassination? How long before (or after)? Thanks--  

 

 

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I don't see anywhere in the article where you present any evidence that Oswald was intending to sell the rifle. Did he place a "for sale" notice somewhere, or is there testimony of someone who discussed purchasing the rifle from him? Is there someone who said Lee discussed wanting to sell his rifle?

I intend to develop this in further detail later, but will outline where I am going with this here. No, there is no "for sale" notice or testimony that Lee discussed selling a rifle. There is no document or bill of sale, or witness testifying to the sale. The argument I have is weaker than that, nevertheless it is an argument. It centers on a witnessing of Oswald's presence at the Dobbs House restaurant on N. Beckley right near Oswald's rooming house in Oak Cliff where he was a regular for breakfast ca. 7 am before taking his bus to work. But on Thu Nov 21, 1963, the day before the assassination, Oswald was at the Dobbs House not at 7 am but 10 am, from high-quality witness testimony. That is highly unusual, yet the quality of the witness testimony is such that it was the fact, the only day known when Oswald was not on time to work (presumably he took a bus in to work after that 10 am). His work records at TSBD show him there since 8 am but that cannot be helped; he was at the Dobbs House at 10 am on Nov 21. Then separately there is also what is arguably also a credible witness testimony, of Ralph Yates' hitchhiker carrying a rifle-sized package, which has been dismissed because he had an (extremely sad) mental breakdown days later, yet on good grounds was not lying about nor hallucinating his story of his hitchhiker. The time and date Yates picked up his hitchhiker was Thu Nov 21, 10:30 am, at the N. Beckley Street entrance to the Thornton freeway. 

The independent juxtaposition in timing is the argument for connecting the two. Yates' hitchhiker was not Oswald (Yates thought it was but that was a mistaken ID), but the hitchhiker with his rifle-sized package was carried by Yates from Beckley Street, immediately following the time of Oswald highly unusually at the Dobbs House at 10 am, dropped off (the hitchhiker) in Dealey Plaza, actually across the street from the TSBD. I am connecting Oswald at the Dobbs House at 10 am with the non-Oswald hitchhiker carrying a rifle from Oak Cliff to Dealey Plaza at 10:30. I am suggesting this was the sale of Oswald's rifle, with the receiver of Oswald's rifle from that sale being that hitchhiker of Yates.

The argument that that was a rifle sale is:

• it had to be something unusual for Oswald to be at a restaurant at 10 am on a weekday instead of at work
• a hitchhiker is witnessed carrying a package consistent with a rifle from proximity of Oswald's location at 10:30 that day to proximity of the presence of Oswald's rifle the next day used in the assassination of JFK
• Oswald is attested in possession of an unusual and unexplained amount of money--in cash--hours later after his 10 am breakfast at the Dobbs House. That night he went to Irving and gave Marina $170, which in today's money is in the neighborhood of $1500-2000, in cash, this from a man working at a job barely above minimum wage. I am suggesting that both the unexplained money in possession of Lee later that same day, as well as Lee's sudden desire to go to Irving that Thursday evening and try to convince Marina to rent an apartment with him that very weekend, is related to a sale of his rifle earlier that day. 
• the reconstruction of the rifle sale renders explicable why Oswald, who had no money to spare, ten days earlier had paid to have the scope put back on the Mannlicher-Carcano, a scope installation for which he personally had no use.

There is more to be developed from this than this, but this is the basics of the argument for the rifle sale itself. It also opens up for consideration a mechanism for how the Mannlicher-Carcano could come to be in the TSBD on Fri Nov 22 without Oswald's knowledge.

 

10 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I find this a fascinating scenario - from personal experience from that period of time I would expect a gun shop to remain open on Saturday (especially during hunting season) regardless of Veterans day.  However that might actually mean only one person was working and Ryder was there alone, for at least part of the day.

I also have no trouble visualizing Oswald taking off on his own with the car to have the scope removed, Marina thinking she and the kids were just going for a short ride while he practiced driving, then getting mad at him.  It seems typical "Oswald" to me, especially if he was shielding ownership of the weapon.  Ruth not believing it happened seems standard for Ruth and Marina not wanting to upset Ruth at first and then not wanting to talk about Oswald and a rifle also strikes me as very believable.

None of that provides any corroboration but its a scenario I find very consistent with all three personalities as I've come to visualize them and it would resolve an incident that has bothered me since I first learned about it. 

Yes Larry, the mention of Marina "getting mad at [Lee]"--I get the impression Lee was used to that quite a bit, not helped by financial circumstances. The character profiles you describe sound right. 

2 hours ago, Ty Carpenter said:

If removal of the scope was a simple process of unscrewing the base, would it not be just as simple to re-install the scope in reverse order? Thereby negating the need for a gunsmith?

Not if the threads were stripped, I think. I would welcome persons experienced with firearms to confirm or refute this, but as I understand it from firearms sites, if the threads were stripped the way a new installation would be done would be to tap and drill right over the existing holes but slightly larger, with new threads. Apparently some gun afficionados can do this at home with the right tools, but most people take it to professionals to do, a gunsmith.

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

I would say one of the main problems with this line of approach is that many persons are justifiably skeptical of the notion that there ever was a rifle sitting in a rolled up carpet in the Paine's garage to begin with.

I understand. The logic and the argument does assume that the rifle was received by Oswald earlier in 1963, and was in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage after late September, in agreement with the basic FBI/Warren Commission narrative concerning the mail-order of the rifle by Oswald by means of an alias, also supported from testimony of the DeMohrenschildts, Marina, and the Backyard Photographs. If the rifle was not in Ruth Paine's garage in early November, and not otherwise in the possession of or accessible to Oswald, then obviously Oswald could not have taken that rifle on a trip to the Furniture Mart and Irving Sports Shop to have work done on it. So you are correct, for those who know that the rifle was not in Ruth Paine's garage, then my analysis will be of limited or no interest. 

However, if that is so, it still leaves the central question unresolved the point of my analysis, which is whether the family that was in the Furniture Mart seen by Mrs. Whitworth was or was not Lee and Marina and their children. That question calls for response irrespective of theories of the rifle. The Warren Commission was clear: it concluded that though the FBI was unable to identify the family otherwise, it simply could not have been Marina and Lee for reasons of (a) internal implausibility and (b) it did not agree with the larger narrative of the Warren Commission. Therefore it was some freak coincidence without any explanation offered other than that, in the Warren Commission analysis. The question I wish my article (this Part I) to have answered by you or other readers, is, do you agree with that Warren Commission analysis that it was not Lee and Marina? Do you agree with the WC that it was not Lee and Marina but on different grounds (than cited by WC)? Or do you think it was Lee and Marina (as I have argued)? It is an up or down question, and set the rifle issue aside, calls for a position taken on that question directly. 

The issues do become linked to this extent however: if it was Lee and Marina in the Furniture Mart--if that up-or-down "yes" answer is the correct judgment there--then that adds weight to Oswald having had possession of a rifle in early November, and likely in Ruth Paine's garage if so since where else would he have it. That is how I see it.

5 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Maybe it's just me, but it's hard to follow the logic of:

1. LHO trying out the rifle with the scope and deciding the scope is junk
2. Paying money to have the junk scope removed
3. Trying out the rifle without the scope
4. Getting rid of all remaining ammo save the four bullets in the rifle, getting rid of any rifle cleaning/maintenance tools, and not doing any more shooting
5. Deciding to sell the rifle (even though there seems to be no evidence of this intent)
6. Paying more money to have the junk scope put back on the rifle

It just seems simpler to offer the rifle and scope for sale as is and let any potential purchaser make the decision of whether or not the scope was worth putting back on the rifle. If Oswald didn't like the scope, how could he expect someone else would?

Pay money to have it on the rifle in the first place, pay more money to have the scope removed, pay even more money to have it put back on (as if it really would have made the rifle that much more valuable), and then possibly leave the potential purchaser with the cost of removing the scope again?

The article is a Part 1 of intended 3, and the purpose here was to make the argument that it was Lee and Marina at the Furniture Mart. That argument is either convincing or not independent of the purpose of a scope installation. You cite various reasons why you don't think that was Lee and Marina, which is fine but raises the question of, if it was not, who were they? Which you answer by suggesting that it indeed was Marina but it was Michael Paine, not Lee, who took Marina and her children to the Furniture Mart. But the man with Marina told Mrs. Whitworth he had just fathered a newborn baby girl, the baby of Marina, a couple of weeks earlier. To me that sounds like Lee, since it was Lee who had just become the father of a baby girl on Oct 20, whereas Michael Paine had no newborn baby girl. The argument for the rifle sale I intend to make in Part 3. A brief point here: I do not think it would cost money to remove a scope, since that simply involved unscrewing the base.

6 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Do you think Oswald was practicing rifle shooting during the time he allegedly owned the rifle?

I think Oswald probably did practice shooting the rifle when he had it prior to Oct-Nov 1963, not necessarily a great deal but a bit. But I do not think he practiced shooting the rifle in Oct or Nov 1963. I regard the alleged Oswald Sports Drome sightings as mistaken identifications, perhaps of Masen. For a lot of good reasons, Oswald was not shooting at the Sports Drome.

Update Jan 16, 2023: please see updated article "The mystery of the Furniture Mart sighting of Lee and Marina Oswald and their children and its solution", at http://www.scrollery.com/?p=1450. 

 

~ ~ ~

Here I make a case that witnesses’ accounts of the Lee Harvey Oswald family in the Furniture Mart in Irving in early Nov 1963 was a genuine sighting, differing from the Warren Commission and a majority of researchers who have thought that it was not Lee and Marina and their children.

That Lee and Marina and their children were at the Furniture Mart in turn will serve to substantiate a separate set of evidence indicating that Lee, seeking a gunsmith, had had a scope installed on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that same day at the Irving Sports Shop about one block away from the Furniture Mart, where he had been directed to go by Furniture Mart store owner Edith Whitworth.

The scope installation by Oswald has also been rejected by the Warren Commission and a majority of researchers, despite the existence of an authenticated job ticket at that shop (verified by an employee to have been written in his handwriting) saying a scope had been installed on a rifle for a customer named “Oswald”.

Both the employee who wrote the job ticket and his boss, the business owner, were certain that that customer named "Oswald" had existed, although the Warren Commission was skeptical. Conspiracy theorists too have imagined all sorts of things, such as someone other than Lee pretending to be Lee—anything except what it prima facie was, which was Oswald having a scope put on a rifle. The Warren Commission asked the FBI to attempt to identify another “Oswald” who might have had a scope put on a rifle at that shop. The FBI contacted every known Oswald in the greater Dallas area, but reported to the Warren Commission that they could not identify some different Oswald as the customer.

Here I intend to post in three parts. First the Furniture Mart, arguing that that was a genuine sighting. Second the Irving Sports Shop rifle scope installation, which I will argue occurred and was a reinstallation of the original scope on the Mannlicher-Carcano which had come with the rifle but which Oswald had removed, but now was reinstalling to prepare it for sale, not for his own use. And third, reason for supposing that Oswald sold the rifle the day before the JFK assassination.

That is, Oswald had removed the scope and its mounting plate that had come with the rifle but now was having that same scope and mounting plate reinstalled again, for the purpose of preparing the rifle for a sale or conveyance. And the anomalies which have been noted with the job ticket which Irving Sports Shop employee and gunsmith Dial Ryder disclosed and turned over to the FBI on Nov 25—the absence of further customer information; Dial Ryder not telling his boss, the business owner, of that job ticket; the inability of the owner to find a register receipt or other store record of a cash payment for that job—are explained not in terms of Dial Ryder forged that job ticket (as the Warren Report seemed to suggest) but rather is in keeping with a phenomenon ubiquitous in retailing which was not considered by the Warren Commission—that this was a case in which cash received for work done by an employee in the owner's absence had gone into the employee’s pocket directly, rather than run through the cash register and processed through store records as should have been done. The owner, Greener, in all likelihood privately realized this but defended his employee publicly rather than lose an otherwise productive high-earning long-term employee and humiliate him before the nation over that indiscretion. But having said that, there is no basis at all for supposing Dial Ryder forged anything, called any reporter, or sought any of the publicity which came upon him.

The significance of this analysis, if viable, is that it goes to the circumstances leading up to and bearing upon the JFK assassination itself. For if this analysis is sound it may emerge that Oswald not only had the scope reinstalled on his Mannlicher-Carcano to prepare it for a sale or conveyance, but reason to suppose such a sale or conveyance indeed did take place before Nov 22, 1963. 

 

The Furniture Mart Oswald family sighting

Edith Whitworth, owner of the Furniture Mart in Irving, and Gertrude Hunter visiting in the store at the time, told of a visit to the Furniture Mart in early Nov 1963 of a man, a woman, a small girl, and newborn baby carried by the woman, who seemed exactly like Lee and Marina Oswald and their two children, a 2-year old girl and newborn baby. The man had told Mrs. Whitworth either that the baby had been born on October 20 or about two weeks prior to the incident at the Furniture Mart. Marina gave birth to Rachel, second child of Lee and Marina, on October 20. The small girl with the woman in the Furniture Mart corresponded to 2-yr old June, daughter of Lee and Marina. Whitworth and Hunter's other details matched Lee and Marina, in physical descriptions and in the woman not speaking; and Whitworth and Hunter confirmed the identity of Marina in a face-to-face meeting with Marina set up by the Warren Commission, though Marina denied it. Marina claimed she had never seen the two women before. 

The man had entered the store inquiring about a gunsmith which a sign outside advertised. Store owner Mrs. Whitworth explained the gunsmith had moved and referred the man to the Irving Sports Shop about a block away. About to leave, the man noticed and expressed interest in Mrs. Whitworth's furniture for sale, saying they would be needing some soon. The man went out to the car and came back into the store followed by a sullen, non-speaking wife carrying a baby and leading a ca. two-year old girl.

Despite the description indicating identification of the Oswald family, seemingly formidable difficulties are encountered. A first problem is that the family arrived in a car driven by the man with no other driver or person with them. The man parked the car in front of the store and the man drove the family away in the car when they left. But Lee did not have a car, did not have a driver’s license, had no known access to a car, and both Marina and Ruth Paine testified unequivocally that they had never seen or known Lee to drive a car on his own.

Second, in the face to face meeting of Whitworth, Hunter, and Marina set up by the Warren Commission, Marina denied ever having been in the Furniture Mart and denied having seen either of the women before, even though both women recognized Marina as the woman who had been in the store.

Third, Ruth Paine, whose detailed testimony provided the timeline relied upon for reconstructing the movements and locations of Lee and Marina in October and November 1963 before the assassination and whose testimony was very thorough and reliable, denied knowledge of any trip to the Furniture Mart or the Irving Sports Shop on the part of either Lee or Marina, said she was sure she would have known if there had been such a trip, and was certain that such a trip had never happened.

And fourth, the Warren Commission concluded that there was no time such a visit could have happened. According to Whitworth and Hunter the family came to the Furniture Mart during business hours on a weekday—remembered by Mrs. Hunter to be a Wed, Thu or Fri of the week ending Nov 9 or Nov 16, and remembered by Mrs. Whitworth similarly as in the week ending Nov 9, though neither could situate the exact day—but Oswald’s time on weekdays in early November was fully accounted for by full-time employment at the Texas School Book Depository, and Oswald’s work records showed no missed days or hours at work. And on weekends when Lee was at Ruth Paine's house Ruth knew where he was and knew he had not gone to either of those places, let alone driving her car.

At the request of the Warren Commission, the FBI did an extensive investigation, trying to identify some alternative famly in the area with baby born in late October and a ca. 2-3 year old girl, but failed to find any alternative identification for the family in Mrs. Whitworth's furniture store that day.

Since no one actually supposes Edith Whitworth, an experienced retail business owner, intentionally fabricated the story, or hallucinated it, most researchers in light of these formidable problems agree with the Warren Report's assessment, basically that it was some sort of freak mistaken identification, some other family of four of exactly similar description, with a wife not responsive or speaking a word of English, just like Marina--but which certainly could not actually have been Lee and Marina. 

(Theories of impersonation in this instance I am not considering worthy of serious consideration, and wish that such theories be discussed elsewhere not on this thread. Any theory of impersonation would have to have not only an actor pretending to be Lee and an actor pretending to be Marina, but an actor 2-yr old daughter and an actor baby as well, all for the elaborate purpose of having a couple of women in a furniture store weeks later maybe remember and tell that a family that looked like Oswald’s had come into the store and the man had sought directions to find a gunsmith. That is pretty elaborate for such a trivial outcome.)

Going against the grain of what the Warren Commission and most conspiracy researchers have thought (that it could not actually have been Lee and Marina), I think it was Lee and Marina and their two children in that Furniture Mart, and that each of the difficulties cited have reasonable explanations.

In brief, I think Lee took Ruth Paine's car on Monday, Nov. 11, without Ruth’s knowledge or permission—the only time Lee did that—with Marina and the children; that Lee had access to Ruth’s car that day and had ability to drive consistent with what was observed at the Furniture Mart; that Ruth Paine's testimony was honest and accurate according to her knowledge but this occurred without her knowledge; and that Marina was untruthful in her denials. I will now run through each of these points in further detail.

 

When?

Although neither woman could fix a specific calendar date, both women remembered it was a weekday (not a Saturday or Sunday), during business hours, midday. Mrs. Whitworth thought it may have been Nov 6, 7, or 8 (Wed-Fri). Mrs. Hunter thought it may have been Nov 6, 7, 13, or 14. This is a case in which memory that the event occurred was certain but there was uncertainty concerning the date. 

Oswald was normally in Irving only on weekends, but there was one exception. On the weekend of Nov 9-10 Oswald remained in Irving one additional day, through Monday night Nov 11, because that Monday was a holiday, Veteran’s Day. 

According to a timeline of day-by-day information obtained from Ruth Paine, compiled by the FBI from interviewing her on Nov 28, 1963: 

"November 11, 1963 -- This was a holiday. [Lee] stayed at the Paine residence this entire day and night. He practiced parking for a short period with Mrs. Paine's car. Mrs. Paine was gone for two or three hours this date but Lee was there when she left and there when she came back." (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57699#relPageId=37 )

There are two notable things about that day according to this early FBI report: (1) Lee practiced parking Ruth’s car. And (2) Ruth Paine was gone for two to three hours.

In later testimony Ruth seemed to have the driving lessons she was giving Lee occur only on Sundays, with no further mention of a Monday. But this Nov 28 FBI report appears to represent the earliest recorded information from Ruth on this subject, and here Lee is practicing with Ruth’s car on Monday Nov 11.

In a later affidavit of June 24, 1964, for the Warren Commission, this one under her own signature, Ruth stated that she was gone about five hours that day (not just two or three hours), on Monday Nov 11, from about 9 am to 2 pm:

"At no time after Marina and I and our children arrived in Irving, Texas, on September 24, 1963, from New Orleans, Louisiana, did I ever take Lee Oswald or Marina Oswald to the Irving Sports Shop, which is located at 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Texas. I was quite aware during all of this period of Marina's activities and where she was. I know of no occasion when either she or Lee Oswald visited either the Furniture Mart or the Irving Sports Shop. 9. There was no occasion during the period Marina resided with me in the Fall of 1963, of which I was aware or now recollect, that Marina rode either in my station wagon or any other automobile or means of conveyance with Lee Oswald at the wheel. Neither the Irving Sports Shop nor Mrs. Whitworth nor Dyal Ryder was ever mentioned in my presence by either of the Oswalds. (. . .) 13. I was not present in my home for part of the day on November 11, 1963. As I testified, I made a trip that day, which was Armstice Day and a holiday, to Dallas, Texas. I was gone from approximately 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. Not wishing to burden Lee and Marina with my children, I had them stay at my neighbors the Craigs. Marina and Lee Oswald and their children were in my home when I left and were there when I returned. Based upon my conversation with Marina and Lee Oswald, and my understanding of their plans for the day, it is my clear opinion that all of them remained in my home during my trip to and from Dallas." (11H154-155)

This is when I think the Furniture Mart trip happened—during those hours on Monday Nov. 11.

 

Could Oswald drive?

Ruth Paine tried to help Lee get a driver's license, and gave him driving lessons. Ruth told the Warren Commission that on her first driving lesson with Lee in mid-Oct, Lee took the keys, got in Ruth's 1955 Chevy Belair station wagon, started it up, and drove, with Ruth in the car, several blocks to the parking lot where they were going to practice, upsetting Ruth who did not want Lee driving her car illegally without a license. (2H505).

Mrs. Paine. ... I offered him a lesson and intended to drive him to this area for him to practice. He, however, started the car.

Mr. Jenner. He got in and started the car?

Mrs. Paine. He got in and started the car so that I know he was able to do that and wanted to drive on the street to the parking lot.

Mr. Jenner. He wanted to?

Mrs. Paine. He wanted to. I said, 'My father is an insurance man and he would never forgive me.'

Mr. Jenner. Your father?

Mrs. Paine. My father. And insisted that he get a learner's permit before he would drive on the street.

Mr. Jenner. At that moment and at that time he acted, in any event in your presence, as though he himself thought--

Mrs. Paine. That is right.

Mr. Jenner. He would be capable of driving an automobile from your home to the parking area in which you were about to give him a lesson. That was your full impression, was it not?

Mrs. Paine. Yes. I should add that, as I am recalling, he did drive a portion of the way, he drove in fact, it is about three blocks, to the parking lot. I was embarrassed to just tell him 'No, don't'. But I did, in effect, on the way there, when he was on the street, driving on the street in my car, when we got there I said, 'Now, I am going to drive back.' I didn't want him to.

Mr. Jenner. From your home to the parking lot?

Mrs. Paine. The first time before we had any lesson at all. And at that time I made it clear I didn't want him to drive in the street. Also, it became clear to me in that lesson that he was very unskilled in driving (. . .)

(. . .)

Mr. Dulles. Did I understand you to say he drove three blocks, was that all the way to the parking lot? So he drove all the way to the parking lot?

Mrs. Paine. Perhaps a little longer. But a short distance, whatever it was, to the parking lot, yes.

Oswald did not have a driver’s license. He was not an experienced driver. But as known from elsewhere, his uncle or cousin in New Orleans had taught him informally to drive, enough that Lee knew how to drive from point A to point B locally without assistance, as in fact he did with Ruth’s car with Ruth in it according to Ruth’s testimony just cited above. By Nov 11 Lee had had additional teaching and practice in parallel parking from Ruth.  

(From an FBI interview of Marina on Nov 29, 1963: “Mrs. Oswald was asked if Oswald could drive a car, and she replied that he did not have a driver’s license. She said Mrs. Paine had taught him something about driving a car after he returned to Dallas in October, 1963. She said also that Oswald’s cousin who lived on French Street in New Orleans had taught him something about driving. She said she believes Oswald could have passed a driver’s test.” https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95652#relPageId=44&search=oswald_driving)

Therefore Lee had the ability to drive to and from the Furniture Mart on the date it happened. That Oswald was not the most skilled or experienced driver is in agreement with Mrs. Hunter at the Furniture Mart telling of how she had to run out front to tell the driver--Oswald--that he was about to drive the wrong way on the one-way street in front of the Furniture Mart, which the driver—Oswald--then corrected and went in the right direction. But Oswald could drive.

 

What car did Oswald drive to the Furniture Mart?

At the Furniture Mart Mrs. Hunter, who got the best look at the car of pulling up to the store, described the car she saw as a "1957 or 1958 Ford, two-tone blue and cream" (FBI interview, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58994#relPageId=36). Blue and white is the same color as Ruth Paine's blue and white 1955 Chevy Belair, the car that Ruth said Lee practiced parking on Nov 11, on the same day that Ruth was gone from the house for several hours. I interpret that Mrs. Hunter saw Ruth Paine's BelAir, driven by Lee.

 

Circumstances of Lee and Marina and their children at Ruth’s house on Nov 11

Michael Paine who lived elsewhere was present visiting at Ruth's house on both Sat Nov 9 and Sun Nov 10, according to testimony. The Paines owned three cars at that time: Ruth's 1955 Chevy Belair in her name; Michael's 1959 Citroen in his name; and a recently purchased 1956 Olds with title also in the name of Michael. It is assumed (not verified from testimony) in this reconstruction that Ruth left for her trip to Dallas that day not in her 1955 Belair but by some other means: perhaps with Michael in Michael's car, leaving the Belair behind at her home.

It is plausible that Ruth, generous and trusting, might have left the keys with Lee to practice parallel parking in the driveway--as the early document prepared by the FBI on the basis of what Ruth told the FBI indicated for that day: “he practiced parking for a short period with Mrs. Paine's car”.

Ruth had arranged childcare for her children next door. From other testimony of Ruth, Marina liked to leave the house at any opportunity to go with Ruth on errands, any chance to get outside of the house. If Lee did decide to borrow Ruth’s car that day without Ruth’s knowledge, Marina's track record was wanting opportunity to get out of the house and go too, anytime someone was driving somewhere and she could accompany.

However, for Marina to go on that day necessarily meant taking both of their children. 2-yr old June and baby Rachel born Oct 20, 1963. In other words, if Lee decided he was going to go somewhere that day when Ruth was gone, Marina is likely--it would be expected--that Marina would have wanted to go too. This then reasonably accounts for why all four of the family, and not Lee alone, were in the car that day running Lee's errand.

 

Purpose of the trip

The purpose was for Lee to get a scope put on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. At the Furniture Mart, the man (Lee) walked in asking for a gunsmith. The man (Lee) was carrying a package in his hands holding something about the size of a scope.

Mr. Liebeler. Now, Mrs. Whitworth, you testified that when this man came in the store he did have an object with him about 15 inches long wrapped n brown paper; isn’t that right?

Mrs. Whitworth. Yes.

Mr. Liebeler. And you also testified that this man asked about a part for the gun; isn’t that right?

Mrs. Whitworth. Yes.

Mr. Liebeler. And you know he had some part of the gun wrapped in this package; didn’t he?

(. . .)

Mr. McKenzie. (. . .) you stated that he had a package in his hand about 15 to 18 inches long; is that correct?

Mrs. Whitworth. No; I saw him.

Mr. McKenzie. I say, you had seen that and stated that he had such a package?

Mrs. Whitworth. I saw him; yes.

Mr. McKenzie. How was the package wrapped?

Mrs. Whitworth. Loosely in brown paper and you know, it didn’t have any strings on it, as far as I remember—it was loosely tied.

Mr. McKenzie. Well, was it a package in a bag?

Mrs. Whitworth. No; he held it with one hand.

Mr. McKenzie. He held it with one hand?

Mrs. Whitworth. Yes.

Mr. McKenzie. Did it look like a piece of pipe or did it look like a gun stock, or did it look like a piece of wood or what did it look like that was in the package?

Mrs. Whitworth. I didn’t see it.

Mr. McKenzie. How big around was the package?

Mrs. Whitworth. It wasn’t large—I’d say it might have been this big [indicating].

Mr. McKenzie. You are making a sign with your hands there, with both hands—

Mrs. Whitworth. What is that—about 2 or 3 inches in diameter?

Mr. McKenzie. All right.

Mrs. Whitworth. And then it was some 15 or 18 inches long.

Mr. McKenzie. So, the package that he had was 2 or 3 inches in diameter and approximately 18 inches long; is that right?

Mrs. Liebeler. Fifteen to 18 inches long.

Mrs. Whitworth. That’s right.

Mr. McKenzie. What did he say to you when he came into the store?

Mrs. Whitworth. He asked me if I had this particular part, some particular part, but not knowing about guns, I didn’t have it. I don’t remember it, you know, what he asked for.

(. . .)

Mrs. Whitworth. Mrs. Hunter and I discussed it afterwards, and I think that she might know more about guns and she said it was a plunger, but I’m not sure—I might have told them [reporter] that I thought it was a plunger, but I don’t remember.

Mr. McKenzie. And you dd not tell the reporter what you thought it was; is that right?

Mrs. Whitworth. No; I didn’t—I don’t believe I ever made the statement that I knew exactly what it was.

Mr. Liebeler. Well, you told the reporter that you thought it was a plunger; isn’t that a fact?

Mrs. Whitworth. I believe Mrs. Hunter said that. She talked to the same reporter—I don’t know what it was, because I don’t remember.

(. . .)

Mr. McKenzie. Did he tell you what the part that he was looking for was to be used with or for?

Mrs. Whitsworth. No; because I didn’t ask him.

Mr. McKenzie. Did he tell you that he was looking for a part for a gun? 

Mrs. Whitworth. Well, it was for a gun, because he asked for it, you know, that part. He came in because I had a gunsmith sign on the street and there had been one there.

Mr. Liebeler. Did he tell you that?

Mrs. Whitworth. No; he didn’t tell me that.

Mr. Liebeler. How did you know that he came in because you had a gunsmith sign on the oor?

Mrs. Whitworth. Well, I presume, that because he asked for a gun part.

Mr. Liebeler. And what part did he ask for?

Mrs. Whitworth.  Don’t know.

Mr. Liebeler. How did you know it was a part for a gun?

Mrs. Whitworth. Well, I just knew it was—whatever he asked for was, you know, pertaining to a gun, but as far as what it was, I don’t know. I didn’t pay that much attention to it because I had people coming in every day asking for something for a gun.

Mr. Liebeler. Did he tell you it was a part for a gun?

Mrs. Whitworth. I knew that it was at that time.

Mr. Liebeler. Did he tell you that it was?

Mrs. Whitworth. That it was?

Mr. Liebeler. Yes.

Mrs. Whitworth. No; he didn’t tell me.

Mr. Liebeler. Did he mention guns?

Mrs. Whitworth. We didn’t talk about it. We didn’t talk about it—when I told him I didn’t have the gunsmith, that he had moved, that he was no longer there and when I told im we no longer had a gunsmith we didn’t talk about what he wanted any more.

Mr. McKenzie. To the best of your recollection, and that’s based on your conversation with Mrs. Hunter, the part that he asked for was a plunger?

Mrs. Whitworth. Well, to the best of my recollection it was, but I wouldn’t say definitely that he asked for a plunger.

Mr. McKenzie. Well, you say you recognized the part that he asked for as being a part of a gun.

Mrs. Whitworth. Yes.

Mr. McKenzie. He didn’t mention to you a gun part at that time, did he, or did he?

Mrs. Whitwort. Well, he asked in such a way that I knew he was seeking the gun shop and not the furniture store.

Mr. Liebeler. Was the word ‘gun’ ever used?

Mrs. Whitworth. Yes; it was, because I told him the gunsmith had moved.

Mr. McKenzie. And what did he say then, please, ma’am?

Mrs. Whitworth. He turned around and he looked at me. He was standing practically nit eh ront or in the middle o the store and he turned and I had furniture all around me—dinette suites over on this side and there was living room furniture to this side, and in front of him there was living room furniture and bedroom furniture and he said, ‘You have furniture?’ I said ‘Yes’. He said, ‘I’m going to need some in about 2 weeks,’ and I said, ‘All right, I’ll be glad to show you some.’ He turns and walks out the door that he came in and took whatever he had in his hand back in the car and that’s when Mrs. Oswald followed him back in and he got back in the store before she did.

(. . .)

Mr. McKenzie. Now, if I may direct this question to Mrs. Hunter; Mrs. Hunter, do you recall any of the conversation that you heard Mrs. Whitworth testify about this morning? 

Mrs. Hunter. Well, when he drove up in the car and I thought it was my friends from Houston and when I seen it wasn’t, I sat back down in the chair and he went down to the door on that end of the building and went in and he asked her, he says, ‘Where is your gunsmith?’ I remember that and he had something—I won’t say just what it was, because I wasn’t particularly interested. I wasn’t in her being down there at the time. She told him that the gunsmith was moved—that he wasn’t there, and she showed him down the street where to go to. 

Mr. McKenzie. Where did she tell him to go?

Mrs. Hunter. Well, now, I don’t know, but it was back down east on Irving Boulevard.

Mrs. Whitworth. There was a gunsmith or a sports shop or something back down there.

Mrs. Hunter. There was a sport shop down there where she showed him to go.

I think it was not simply something related to a gun that was of similar size and shape as a scope, it was a scope--the scope, and its base, that had originally come with the Mannlicher-Carcano, which Oswald had earlier removed (because it was a piece of junk and in the way), but which he had kept and was now going to pay to have put back on for purpose of prep for resale. That what Oswald had in his hands in the Furniture Mart of the size of a scope probably was a scope, is consistent with where he went next, to where Mrs. Whitworth referred him, the Irving Sports Shop, where a work order was found--a document--telling of a customer named Oswald having a scope put on a rifle. Its a fairly straightforward connection of dots.

Why would Oswald want to install a scope on the Mannlicher-Carcanao, since it has been established that the Mannlicher-Carcano was shipped with a scope already installed? The simplest explanation is that Oswald removed the scope and base because it was unwanted or inconvenient, then had the same base and scope reinstalled on Nov 11 to prepare it for resale or conveyance. Since the same base and scope (kept by Oswald apart from the rifle after taking it off) was being put back on, it did not involve Oswald buying anything or bearing any expense other than the necessary charge for the reinstallation itself. The reinstallation of the scope would not be for Oswald’s own use (he did not like it, as evidenced by his having removed it earlier), but to ready it for sale or conveyance with the scope on it that it had been sold with. This solution to the apparent contradiction of the scopes is simple and uncomplicated. However it is inconsistent with an intention of Oswald to use the rifle for himself (as in fact there is no evidence that Oswald fired the rifle at all in October or November 1963). It was a reinstallation of the same scope on the one rifle in Oswald’s possession.

 

Why would Lee and Marina keep the borrowing of the car, and this short local trip, a secret from Ruth Paine? 

Because it involved the rifle, and because Lee had borrowed Ruth’s car without permission. Marina was complicit by having ridden in Ruth's car with Lee and known about it without telling Ruth. Neither Lee nor Marina told Ruth. Also, and the reason for accomplishing the scope installation in this manner behind Ruth’s back, Lee and Marina did not believe Ruth knew of the existence of the rifle itself or its presence in her garage, whereas Marina knew or perhaps had recently learned, how strong Ruth's anti-gun views were, particularly in a house with small children. It is even conceivable--very possible--that Marina hearing Ruth's pronounced views on this topic (guns), and Lee learning of this via Marina, could be a contributing factor (maybe even the reason itself) for Lee taking action to resolve that issue by getting the rifle moved out of Ruth Paine's garage. He had not been using it, and had no real place to store it other than Ruth Paine's garage, so it would not be surprising that Lee would rationally conclude the thing to do was sell it, and to sell it meant getting the scope put back on like it was originally.

Even if Marina had protested to Lee or had tried to talk Lee out of driving Ruth’s car that day (Marina’s sullenness and lack of any word or smile seen by the women at the Furniture Mart could be consistent with having had an argument with Lee), the fact that Marina had acquiesced and went along on the trip would be sufficient reason not to disclose the trip to Ruth.

As to why Lee would take Ruth's car without permission and not tell her--an abuse of Ruth’s hospitality--the reason would be because it was the only way Lee could get something done that needed to be done with the least amount of conflict, combined with opportunity. As reconstructed, this would be the only time Lee drove Ruth’s car without Ruth’s knowledge or permission. There is no evidence or indication that happened on any other occasion.

 

Why did Marina deny she had been in the Furniture Mart or ever seen the women before, when the Warren Commission set up the meeting of the three women in 1964? 

Because Marina had already lived this minor lie to Ruth all the time up to that point, and as is often the case when people are involved in deception, a choice is sometimes made to stick with a story rather than the discomfort and scrutiny raised by disclosing the truth in contradiction. 

The two women recognized Marina but Marina denied having seen them before. In reading that bizarre testimony it is simply obvious that one of the two parties is either wildly mistaken or untruthful. The issue is which. Was it Mrs. Whitworth the longtime sensible business owner who has no reason to lie and a second witness backing her up? Or was it Marina who had reason to dissemble and a track record of doing so on other matters in her testimony in numerous instances? It is not too difficult to decide which one of the two has a greater likelihood of being the dissembler, all else being equal, if a choice has to be made (and in this case a choice does have to be made). Simple witting dissembling is regarded here as the simplest explanation for why Marina, in that face to face, denied that she was the woman in the store with two children and a husband who exactly matched the description of herself, her two children and Lee, even when Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter were right there recognizing her and saying it was her. The mystery is over; it indeed was Marina in that store, despite Marina’s denial.

 

Time of day 

There is a discrepancy in that the Furniture Mart women had the time of the family arriving as after 2 pm, which if correct seems incompatible with Lee running an errand of this nature if Ruth Paine was only gone ca. 9 am until 2 pm that day. Also, the Furniture Mart women had it on a Wed-Fri not a Monday. I believe the other reasons for considering the visit of Lee and Marina and their children to the Furniture Mart as real, mean this timing discrepancy will have some mundane explanation as witness error, rather than negating that it was Lee and Marina.

Here is what I think: although Mrs. Whitworth remembered the visit itself well and estimated it was most likely in the week ending Nov 9, it was Mrs. Hunter (the more dramatic and opinionated of the two) who convinced Mrs. Whitworth of a more exact timing as the two women discussed it following the assassination. Mrs. Hunter linked it to their talking about who was traveling with who to a particular school football game, when the man (Oswald) had walked in. Mrs. Hunter linked that to her pattern of coming to the Furniture Mart after 2 pm on Wed or Thu or Fri to discuss carpooling (or whatever) to the weekly Friday night school football game. Mrs. Hunter thought the Oswald family visit had happened either the week ending Nov 9 or the week ending Nov 16. In fact the particular football game that both Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter linked their conversation to that day was identified and it took place Fri Nov 8. I think Mrs. Hunter confused a post-game talking about that Nov 8 school football game with a pre-game talking about that school football game. Furthermore, although Mrs. Hunter explained that she normally came in after 2 pm because of something about waiting until after a 2 pm phone call daily from her daughter at work, that may not have been the case on Veterans Day, a holiday. Mrs. Hunter seems to have hung out at the Furniture Store as a social need, and she may have went to the Furniture Mart that day, Veterans Day, earlier (without a 2 pm daughter at work phone call factor). Mrs. Whitworth herself remembered the time of day as being somewhat earlier than Mrs. Hunter's insistence that it had been after 2 pm, with Mrs. Whitworth not sure but thinking it may have been more like maybe noon or 1. Since in the analysis here the family actually was Lee and Marina and there is no other day this could have occurred than Monday Nov 11, if Ruth Paine left in the morning that day, the true time of the Furniture Mart visit most likely would have been late morning. The difference between, say, 11 am, and Mrs. Whitworth's noon or 1 pm, in a witness who said she could not remember the time or exact day, is interpreted as a witness not perfectly remembering an exact time of day something happened two weeks earlier.  

 

Summary

Ruth Paine left her house on Monday, Nov 11, perhaps with Michael in Michael's car, leaving Lee and Marina and her Chevy Belair at her home. Ruth was gone for either ca. 2-3 hours (earliest estimate) or ca. 5 hours (later more specific estimate, 9 am-2 pm). Lee and Marina were at her home when she left and were there when she returned. Neither Lee nor Marina told Ruth that Lee had taken her car to a gunsmith to get a scope put on a rifle which Ruth did not know Lee had been in her garage. Ruth testified she was certain Lee and Marina had not gone on any trip to the Furniture Mart or Irving Sports Shop in October or November, because she knew their whereabouts when they were in Irving and, in her mind, such a trip could not have happened without her knowing about it. But the evidence indicates exactly that; it did happen on Nov 11 without her knowing about it—the only day in the timeline it could have happened; a day which matches the “weekday” memory of the women at the Furniture Mart (though not which weekday of the women’s imperfect memory), a day in agreement with the few days range in early November of both Furniture Mart women’s memory of when it occurred, and a day in agreement with the two-week span of time in which the owner and an employee of the Irving Sports Shop determined the visit of an Oswald to the Irving Sports Shop to have a scope installed had occurred (a two-week period when the owner had been gone, Nov 1-14). Lee, who did have sufficient ability to drive even though he did not have a license, borrowed Ruth's car without her knowledge, the 1955 BelAir wagon. The color of Ruth’s 1955 Belair matches the blue and white color of the car Mrs. Hunter said the family arrived in when they parked in front of the Furniture Mart. That is because it was Ruth’s car.

I think this is relevant here: on the issue of the second-floor encounter, Barry Ernest, author of The Girl on the Stairs, gives little-known or not-previously-known additional supporting the credibility of the witnesses who said the encounter did occur, here: https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/2021/03/29/the-lunchroom-encounter/. In this post on Berry Ernest's blog:

• Barry Ernest tells of a Philadelphia reporter who very early on the morning of Nov 23, 1963, tried to reach Roy Truly at home. Truly's wife answered and said Truly had already left to go to the TSBD, but Truly's wife talked to the reporter. "The previous evening--shortly after 7 p.m.--he [Mr. Truly] related to her [Mrs. Truly] how he and a policeman had met Oswald in a second floor lunchroom not long after the shooting." The reporter, named Adrian Lee, had earlier been verified to Barry Ernest as having been in contact with Truly, by Truly, in March 1968. 
• Barry Ernest tells of interviewing Lt. Carl Day in 1999 and Day saying--referring to before 3 pm Fri Nov 22--"I took the gun [6th floor rifle] back to the department, locked it up, and returned to the Depository. I spoke with Truly then, who related the story of running up to the second floor after the shots and seeing Oswald standing at the coke machine."
• In comments following the post, attention was called to a Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview by Karen Westbrook telling of employees on the 2nd floor gathered after the assassination, and her supervisor, Mrs. Reid, telling her and other fellow employees at that time--about 2 pm on Friday, minutes after the event--of seeing Oswald come into her office area holding a coke, asking Mrs. Reid what the excitement was, and Mrs. Reid having told Oswald the president had been shot--with link to the Karen Westbrook interview; the Mrs. Reid part starts at 12:35: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=karen+westbrook+sixth+floor+museum&docid=608015258633724565&mid=09085A0F3F7C5A2A8C5909085A0F3F7C5A2A8C59&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Barry Ernest comments: "I suppose the point of all this is that if the second floor lunchroom incident was fictitious, it certainly had to be invented rather quickly. It had to be thought up, pulled together, and brought into line--rehearsed, one might say--with a handful of consenting adults prior to Truly telling his wife about it shortly after his arrival home at 7 o'clock that very night".

1 hour ago, Denis Morissette said:

The B&W image from of a TV footage, KLRD. You can view it on YouTube. It is Dealey Plaza. When did the fire trucks arrive? 

Unable to find it.

45 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Excellent work Greg, that's put that to bed. How do you reconcile Oswald saying that he wore a reddish shirt that day and there not being one and no evidence of that being true ? That statement seems anomalous. 

Jake thanks on the first comment. On the second, the question, I do not understand the question at all. C151, a maroon-reddish colored shirt, was found at Oswald's rooming house in Oak Cliff, color photographs of it have appeared in earlier posts on this thread, two color photographs, one a then-new color photograph of C151 obtained by Pat Speer in 2016--this was the first color photograph ever made public of C151--and then after that the original color photograph of C151 which was published in black-and-white in the Warren Report also came to public attention for the first time. Both of these color photos of C151 are clearly reddish. Oswald's claim that he wore a reddish button-down-collar shirt that day is in agreement with what is known of the color of the button-down-collar shirt C151. Your statement might reflect accurately the state of known evidence prior to 2016 before Pat Speer obtained and posted for the first time a color photo of C151, but the objection is obsolete after 2016. Check "4b" on Pat Speer's website, "Threads of Evidence".

Andrej -- yes your cautions are good on the timing analyses.

On a different minor point, at an earlier stage you devoted a little attention to a "greenish looking shirt" Charles Givens said Oswald was wearing, according to the Warren Report, a color that no one else gave for Oswald that day.

I would like to suggest that that is a mistake in the Warren Report, and that rather than consider that green color as data that needs explanation, it is a simple typo in the Warren Commission transcription process, and Givens never claimed any green color. The statement at issue from the published Warren Report (emphasis added):

"Mr. Belin. Do you remember what he [Oswald] was wearing?

"Mr. Givens. Well, I believe it was kind of a greenish looking shirt and pants was about the same color as his shirt, practically the same thing he wore all the time he worked there. He never changed clothes the whole time he worked there, and he would wear a grey looking jacket."

"Mr. Belin. All right. You saw him at 8:30 on the first floor?

"Mr. Givens: Yes, sir."

As it stands, Givens appears to be saying not only that Oswald was wearing a shirt that looked greenish, but pants too ("about the same color as his shirt")--and that Oswald always wore green ("practically the same thing he wore all the time"), every day he worked there. That makes absolutely no sense, with not a single other witness saying anything like that.

Curiously a handwritten "greyish" in cursive can easily be misread as "greenish". Try writing out those two words in handwriting (I don't know how to illustrate it here) and notice how the "y" in handwritten cursive "greyish" could easily be misread by someone as "en" making "greenish", depending on how "greyish" is written in rapid handwriting. Five pages later in Givens' testimony in the Warren Report on p. 351 I noticed the same phenomenon again:

"Mr. Belin. What did he [Oswald] say to you?

"Mr. Givens. I say, 'It's near lunch time.' He said, 'No, sir. When you get downstairs, dose [sic] the gate to the elevator.' That meant the elevator on the west side, you can pull both gates down and it will come up by itself."

It reads "dose" where clearly what was said was "close" the gate. But handwritten "close" was misread by some transcriber or typist as "dose" because cursive "cl" can easily be misread as cursive "d", accounting for the mistaken "dose". The error was not an error in hearing the word wrongly, nor was the error in hitting a wrong nearby typewriter key by mistake. Instead the word "close" was heard correctly and handwritten correctly as "close", but the handwriting was mistakenly read as "dose" in the transcription process to appear in the published Warren Report as "dose the gate".

I believe this provides the best explanation for the "greenish" looking shirt--Givens never said "greenish", he said "grayish" and that was handwritten "greyish" and mistakenly transcribed as "greenish" from the handwritten "greyish". With this it becomes sensible, in keeping with what Givens says was "practically the same thing" that Oswald "wore all the time", since it is known without controversy (undisputed) that Oswald's pants at work were gray, not green. But it was not just Oswald's pants at work that were gray, Oswald's jacket worn to work that day and other days also was gray (per witness testimony and argument, though that is disputed with the Warren Report saying differently).

There is some confusion in other witness statements in which Oswald's gray jacket is called a gray "shirt", even though I am unaware that any actually gray shirt was found in Oswald's belongings, and the only two shirts he was known to have worn or claimed to have worn that day (C151 and C150) were brown and maroon-reddish, neither gray. This confusion between "gray shirt" and "gray jacket" comes up in Bonnie Ray Williams' and Whaley's testimony as well. Bonnie Ray Williams said, "to the best of his recollection, Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing a grey corduroy pair of pants and a greyish looking sport shirt with long sleeves on November 22, 1963" (FBI interview report, 12/5/63). I believe this is already been generally understood, not too controversially, as Williams likely referring to Oswald's grey jacket even if the FBI report reads "shirt". 

Similarly if Givens' "greenish" is corrected to "greyish", Givens would be saying, just like the report of Bonnie Ray Williams, that Oswald's "shirt" (sic--meaning jacket) was "greyish looking" matching his gray pants, the same as Oswald always wore every day, "a grey looking jacket", with Givens basically repeating (or clarifying) in his answer a second time when he said Oswald "would wear a grey looking jacket".

Bonnie Ray Williams: "grey corduroy pair of pants and a greyish looking sport shirt with long sleeves"

Charles Givens: "greenish [sic --> greyish] looking shirt and pants was about the same color as his shirt ... practically the same thing he wore all the time ... he would wear a grey looking jacket"

Buell Wesley Frazier: "It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning."  

William Whaley (cab), FBI interview report 12/5/63: "[he] was dressed in gray khaki pants . . . He had on a dark colored shirt with some light color in it. The shirt had long sleeves and the top two or three buttons were unbuttoned. The color of the shirt [sic] nearly matched the pants, but was somewhat darker."

William Whaley (cab), 1964 testimony to Warren Commission: "he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants."

Givens' "greenish" looking shirt on Oswald therefore is well explained as a typo for "greyish" which Givens actually said and it actually referred to Oswald's jacket, in line with these other similar witness statements. There never was a color green calling for explanation with respect to Oswald's shirt.

14 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Oswald's last presence in the second floor lunchroom is murky and poses a valid question as to whether it actually happened. If the second floor lunchroom encounter between Oswald and Baker happened as reported in official reports, Lee Oswald could only enter the vestibule from the hallway of the second floor offices which would exclude him as the shooter. It remains to be determined whether there was enough time for Lee to leave the doorway when Darnell stopped filming and to reach the vestibule of the second floor just on time to be seen by Officer Baker.

I think I may have something to add on the timing matter analysis. I think a major perceived objection to the PM = LHO proposition is the second-story encounter, assumed improbable with the timing. One solution is to disappear the second-story encounter. The major problem with that is Truly, Baker, Reid, and Oswald himself said it happened in their various statements and testimony, and I cannot fathom Truly and Baker being suborned to knowingly perjure themselves under oath and stick to that story for the rest of their lives, for such a minor convoluted reason. Remember Rube Goldberg drawings of overly complex mechanical devices to accomplish simple tasks? That is what notions that Truly, Baker, and Reid--three of them, or two following one who hallucinated--lying under oath and sticking to it for life, all to imperfectly get some very remote twig of a story altered on behalf of unseen micromanaging conspirators . . . I think it much more likely that witting lying under oath in the WC testimony was relatively uncommon, that the problems with witness testimonies are generic to witness testimonies filled with mistakes and malleable memories and wishful thinking and confusions and wanting to give the right answers and retroactive reconstructions and exaggerations, etc. . . . but very little wilful lying and when that did happen, even less if any suborning of that by some unseen hidden hand, i.e. any specific cases of lying under oath, to the extent such happened, for the most part were free-lanced or wildcat for personal reasons. The exception would be occasional cases of witnesses who are pathological XXXXX, making up entire stories out of whole cloth, which happens, but those cases are for the most part recognized and discounted and not typical of most witnesses and not at issue here. So, I just cannot see that the second-story encounter testimonies not of one but of four can be rejected on grounds either of mistakes/misunderstandings or of coordinated lifelong wilful lying and perjury. There is no evidence that is how it worked other than circularly as a mechanism to explain perceived anomalies. On the other hand, the contradictions and confusions in news reports from the first couple of days, based on secondhand interviews from people like Ochus Campbell, and reporters' getting facts garbled in stories, are explicable as what happens with news reporting. And the first-day statement of Baker referring to "third or fourth floor" (as I read it) does verify "not on the first floor" but does not mean "not second floor" in reality--because Baker elsewhere shows confusion over floor levels, it happened so fast, that is nitpicking, when that "third or fourth floor" encounter is obviously the encounter that actually happened on the second floor, he just got the floor wrong. There was no lifelong conspired concealment on the part of Truly and Baker in coordination to never let on that there was actually a different mystery figure stopped by Baker on a higher floor. Baker just got the floor level wrong. 

On the other hand, if it is accepted that the second-floor encounter happened as Baker and Truly, also consistent with Mrs. Reid and Oswald, said it did, there may be heretofore-unrecognized support or at least compatibility with Prayer Man being Oswald. Rather than a perceived difficulty with a PM = LHO identification, it may support it, as follows.

The Darnell film shows Baker running and the film stops with Baker almost to the front steps. Since Baker's purpose was to get inside the TSBD and to the top of the building, and since that is what he said he did, there is no basis I can see for supposing he did anything other than that--went up the steps, moments after the film ends. The film shows Prayer Man in that corner at the top landing. Baker rushed through the first set of doors, would have gone right by Prayer Man, gets inside and asks employees nearby where are the stairs. Truly out front saw this and chased after Baker and caught up with him and told Baker who he was (supervisor) and said he would show Baker.

The entire timing of Baker from shots to the second-story encounter was studied and reenacted and (working from memory) the results showed ca. 90 seconds, although Baker said it could have been slightly less than that, possibly as little as ca. 70 seconds, of which ca. 30 seconds (?) was taken up by the motorcycle movement and running to the entrance of the TSBD.

The movements of Oswald, on the assumption that he was Prayer Man, reconstructed earlier, those were not reenacted but I will attempt to give time estimates/guesses. The question is whether Oswald would have been able to get to the second-floor encounter with Baker at the time Baker was there, and I say the answer is not only yes, but a ringing yes.

To reconstruct Oswald's movements (under present scenario of LHO = PM), Oswald sees Baker rush through the doors going inside. That becomes the earliest possible moment Oswald could leave the top landing. But Mrs. Reid, who had been standing out front a little away from the front steps, said after the shooting that she had walked up, which would be the SE stairs, and was still walking and had just reached her desk area (but had not yet sat down) when Oswald went by coming from the vestibule area to the rear second-floor entrance where Baker was. This means Oswald, who went up the SE stairs as his means of getting to the second floor, went up before Mrs. Reid. Since Mrs. Reid did not say she saw him on the stairs ahead of her, he went up before Mrs. Reid got to the stairs. So some seconds before Mrs. Reid's arrival to the SE stairs is the latest possible time Oswald went up those stairs. 

In my reconstruction time must be allowed for Oswald to go to the first-floor domino room first in order to get his gray jacket there, since he is intending to exit the building at this point. I am going to guess 10 seconds to walk there, 3 seconds to go into the room and grab his jacket, and 10 seconds to walk back to the SE stairwell. Then up the SE stairs, 7 seconds, then across diagonally the second floor offices area (where Mrs. Reid's desk is except she is not there yet, and Geneva Hines' desk is except she at this moment is at the Southwestern Publishers' Company office looking out the window at Elm, meaning the office area Oswald is walking has no one in it who sees him cross through). Estimate ca. 10 seconds for Oswald to cross through and get to the rear door that goes out to where Truly and Baker are climbing the stairs. 

So that by these estimates would be ca. 40 seconds, starting from ca. 0-10 seconds after Baker went through the first front doors. 

If it took ca. 30 seconds for Baker to get on foot inside the first set of doors of the TSBD entrance from the time of the shots, that means ca. 40-60 seconds for Baker to get to the 2nd floor landing of the NW stairs. Although Baker was fast-moving, there are three elements that slowed him down, compared to Oswald who was also fast moving but was moving alone. The first is he had to stop and find someone in TSBD to tell him where stairs were that would go to the top of the building. Truly momentarily appeared, but words had to be exchanged, Truly had to tell him who he was, a few seconds of time Baker is stalled before proceeding. Second, Baker has to wait for Truly to take the lead, instead of just rapidly moving on his own. Truly is an older man, perhaps is still agile but not quite as fast-moving as the younger Baker if Baker were on his own. And, when they move, Baker has to wait for Truly to get a little ahead so Baker can follow, at each stop-and-start. Third, they run toward the stairs but Truly has a better idea and says let's try the elevator, then the inability to get an elevator, the shouting up the elevator shaft, no response, then return to the NW stairs to climb those, Truly going up first, Baker following. All of these factors add seconds--10? 15? 20?--over what it takes Oswald on his own to transverse the same actual distance on the second floor, to arrive at the same meeting point with Baker. 

The key point is they DO meet at the same time. Here is where I offer a new detail (well probably someone before has suggested this in the past 60 years but new for me). It has always been wondered how Truly could have noticed nothing about that second-floor door, but Baker, following behind him, did see Oswald, in a way that drew his attention. Arguments have been built on this, attempts to reconstruct exactly how that happened, or could have happened. Here is what I think happened: it was not just that Baker. looked through a tiny glass pane in a closed door and saw--through that glass pane--Oswald walking away. 

No, Oswald actually started to open the door when he got there, intending to go out (and down the stairs to exit the TSBD through a rear door). (Oswald does not have any coke in hand at this point.) But upon opening the door he comes face to face with the uniformed Baker who is just arriving to that point. Truly did not see this because Oswald had not arrived to open that door when Truly walked by. Oswald's opening the door happened after Truly walked up the stairs but before Baker had walked by. Oswald immediately reversed course and walked away. Baker, seeing this, is (understandably) suspicious and accosts Oswald at gunpoint, with Truly coming down and seeing this too moments later. It was Oswald actually opening the door from the inside which caught Baker's attention, and which did not catch Truly's attention because of when Oswald did that (after Truly had passed, before Baker passed) and from which direction Oswald was opening that door (from inside going out). The significance of this is it explains how Baker saw Oswald but Truly did not at that second floor landing; and it means Oswald arrived with intended exit through that door at exactly the same time as Baker arrived at that landing. 

The significance of this last point is that, per the reconstruction, the start of Oswald leaving Prayer Man's position to make that exit path (up to the second story, over, down the back stairs, out a rear door) . . . is approximately the same time that Baker entered the TSBD. It could vary by some seconds or tens of seconds but not by much greater scale than that since neither one was signficantly delayed; they each had the same start- and endpoints; and the endpoints happened at exactly the same time; therefore, the startpoint of Oswald and Baker from the entrance to the TSBD was also at approximately the same time.

This agrees with the film evidence, if PM = LHO, in that Baker is seen momentarily about to run up the front steps where Prayer Man is, from which both then end up ca. 60 seconds or so later, meeting at the second-floor rear stairwell landing! And Prayer Man/Oswald (if so) did not leave his position at that top landing of the steps before Baker arrived, and did not leave very long after Baker would have passed by him (because Oswald had to have gone up the SE stairs before Mrs. Reid, which is a time constraint meaning Oswald, if Prayer Man, did not remain there much longer after Baker's arrival.

In fact it is very reasonable that it was Baker rushing past that could have helped trigger Oswald to leave by the means reconstructed which ended up with him almost running out into Baker at the other side of the building, on the second floor.

In other words, there may be a timing argument that, far from arguing against Oswald being Prayer Man (if the second-story encounter happened), or against the second-story encounter (if Oswald is Prayer Man), reinforces or supports the other reasons for the Prayer Man = Oswald identification. 

Loose ends: (1) what about Mrs. Reid seeing Oswald with a coke? Well, she did say that. Notably, Baker did not see Oswald with a coke in his hand, nor did Truly. Nor did Oswald go to the second floor following the shots to get a coke then. But if asked what he was doing there when Baker accosted him (I forget if Oswald was asked that question, probably so since it became part of the narrative and it would be a natural thing for officer Baker to ask), the most natural thing in the world--the obvious thing--would be Oswald would say "I came to get a coke". He is not going to say the true reason, which is he was intending to leave the building. Having failed to make his exit out the back way, and having said (thinking quickly) that he was only up there to get a coke, Oswald buys a coke (to support what he just said). So when he walks by meeting Mrs. Reid who is just arriving walking to her desk, Mrs. Reid sees him with a coke in his hand, which Oswald would then have ditched somewhere on his way out when out of sight before he slipped out the front entrance and left the TSBD.

On physical descriptions. Baker said the man he accosted "on the third or fourth floor" (but which was actually the second), after writing his statement Baker is reported by another officer there to have identified Oswald right there in the police station as the man he had stopped "on the third or fourth floor" (actually the second floor). Baker said he thought the man he accosted (Oswald), was "wearing a light brown jacket" (DPD statement, 11/22/63). Per reconstruction Oswald, prepared to leave the TSBD, had on his gray jacket, and the assumption here is that Baker got the color slightly mistaken but was accurate in the part that Oswald was wearing a jacket. Mrs. Reid, meanwhile, said Oswald came by her, after her return to the office following the shots (so there is no mistaking the timing of this, for Mrs. Reid), wearing a white T-shirt. By the analysis here that was simply wrong, a witness error or mistake, since Oswald was in fact wearing a maroon-reddish shirt over a white T-shirt, and had on a gray jacket over that. Oswald had often worked in a white T-shirt only in the past, but Mrs. Reid's description of the T-shirt on that occasion, moments after Baker saw the same man, as distinguished from Mrs. Reid's seeing Oswald itself, was mistaken, according to this analysis.

Key points in summary: per this reconstruction in which Prayer Man is Oswald, the respective timings of Baker and Oswald in getting from the same Point A (front entrance doors of TSBD) to the same Point B (2nd story rear stairwell door) at the same time, means they both started at approximately the same time from Point A. The reconstructed timing agrees very well within margins of error. The Prayer Man identity as Oswald is not only compatible with but is supported by this reconstruction of Oswald getting to Point B at the same time as Baker. What has seemed to some to argue either against the PM = LHO identification, or the second story encounter having happened, is resolved such that each of these supports the other, and, if this reconstruction holds up, adds support to the PM = LHO identification--because it arguably has the second-floor encounter make better sense than the way the Warren Commission reconstructed it.

On 9/6/2020 at 4:03 PM, Denis Morissette said:

Can you work on this color photo taken about 20 minutes after the shooting?

Denis is it correct you are identifying the right photo as taken 20 minutes after the shooting? Where are you getting the black and white photo on the left? Is that woman identified, what are those vehicles in the background, and is it verified that photo is from Dealey Plaza that day? At about what time? 

1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi Greg. I think your proposal is fascinating and from your previous posts I know you will have given this serious consideration. Can I ask about the acquisition of the rifle: It strikes me you are saying Oswald voluntarily lost control of his rifle and other actors took advantage of this. If the big event took planning, are you saying this was a lucky break for the planners? and does this exonerate Oswald? 

Eddy, yes, I think Oswald voluntarily gave up control of the rifle just before the assassination, and I think Oswald was innocent of both Tippit and JFK. If the argument for a pre-assassination sale or conveyance of the rifle is substantial, that would change the narrative to a focus on whose rifle was it on Nov 22. As for how that might or might not play a role in an assassination plot whose planning began earlier, I do not know answers to that. In my own understanding I am sure Oswald was not a shooter in the JFK assassination, and I strongly doubt he would have knowingly been party to assisting anyone else to kill JFK. There are many variables and ambiguities so all must be argued and weighed, but that is how I see it. 

6 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

I think that Mrs Blesdoe refuted the shirt issue in her statement where she very accurately describes seeing him board the bus in the shirt he was arrested in. She specifically says that it had a torn right elbow and all the buttons tore off. 

Jake this is one of those disputed points of witness testimony, but Mary Bledsoe had been shown the shirt with the torn elbow in which Oswald was arrested, C150, the brown shirt, by FBI agents before her Warren Commission testimony. At her Warren Commission testimony she was pressed on her memory of that shirt and insisted it was what Oswald had worn. When pressed had had she seen it she said no but that's what he was wearing, meaning she knew it from the FBI agents previously. In short Mary Bledsoe is not the most reliable witness, though she tried to be helpful. In addition, for separate reasons argued elsewhere I consider it certain that Oswald left the TSBD wearing his gray jacket (not the blue one) and would have been wearing it on the bus, meaning if she did see a tear in the elbow it could have been in that gray jacket which would not be implausible given that Oswald had had it since before going to Russia, so could have worn through an elbow. Per reconstruction, Oswald abandoned that gray jacket after leaving the cab but before getting to his rooming house and its whereabouts are lost at that point, so there is no way to check whether it had a worn-through elbow. (My analysis of the jackets, "The Jackets as Exculpation of Oswald as the Tippit Killer: an analysis", is here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27367-an-argument-for-actual-innocence-of-oswald-in-the-tippit-case/page/2/.) The positive argument for Oswald wearing the maroon-reddish shirt, C151, that morning is it was Oswald's claim; the shirt was found at his rooming house exactly where Oswald said it was; and his whole changing of pants and jacket in keeping with other behavior for purpose of evasiveness would predict he would not make an exception and not change his shirt as well, which is in keeping with his saying that that is what he did.

Here is from Mary Bledsoe's Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked--- 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it. 
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150. 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it. 
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt. 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it. 
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?" 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it. 
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?" 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it. 
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there? 
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it? 
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is the one he had out there that day? 
Mr. BALL - Who had it out there? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Some Secret Service man. 
Mr. BALL - He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes. 
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes. 
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well--- 
Mr. BALL - Have you? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though. 

In an earlier Dec 4, 1963 FBI interview report the agents reported "when the shirt [C160] was removed from an envelope in which it was contained, Mrs. Bledsoe at first said, 'No, no. That is not his shirt.' She then inquired as to whether the shirt had a ragged elbow. Upon further examination of the shirt, she observed a hole in the right elbow of the shirt, at which time she quickly stated, 'Yes, yes. This is the shirt.'" She also claimed in her testimony that the shirt on Oswald at that time had all of its buttons torn off, which no other witness said of Oswald's shirt prior to his arrest and which makes little sense prior to the arrest. It looks like a witness who was suggestible, trying to give the agents what they wanted to hear, conflating the shirt she was shown by the agents and thereby understood Oswald had been wearing, with what she said she saw on Oswald on the bus. As Pat Speer I think noted, unconscionably the FBI did not show Mrs. Bledsoe, or any other of the witnesses from that morning, C151 the reddish-maroon shirt that Oswald said he had been wearing (even though FBI had it and could have shown it), to let witnesses compare with C150 the brown shirt of the arrest. If that had been done, what would witnesses' reactions have been? That will never be known.

On your other point on Oswald's gray pants and do they agree with the shade of Prayer Man's pants in the photos, I have to defer to Andrej on that but as I recall Andrej said the gray scale (not color itself) of the pants of PM was roughly equivalent to the gray-scale of the shirt of Prayer Man (= maroon-reddish C151 on gray scale), and both shirt and pants of Prayer Man were in shadow. I suppose the relevant question would be what specific gray pants did Oswald wear that morning and what gray scale were they. 

 

Andrej Stancak -- After studying through again your your research on this thread I am convinced your detailed case for Prayer Man being Oswald is as strong as it can be absent a sharper photograph to give facial recognition. Point after point checks out and matches, as you bring out. Height, 5'9". The Type 2 male pattern hairline true of ca. 25% of males. The grayscale of the shirt in the black-and-white in agreement with the maroon/reddish color of the shirt Oswald was wearing, CE151. The identification of Sarah Stanton as to Wesley Frazier's left, as Frazier himself said. The body language analysis is interesting. The lack of any other identification of PM, including from Frazier. The agreement with Oswald's own claims of where he was at the time of the assassination, according to the various versions of the notes taken of Oswald after his arrest.

Even the timing you work out, in which Prayer Man's time in that rear NW corner of the front doorway area started a few seconds after the shots and he was only there for ca. 30 seconds or so, agrees with Kelley's notes that Oswald said he did not see the parade, yet at the same time Oswald telling Hosty and Bookhout that upon hearing commotion he went out front "with Shelley". 

I think the second-floor encounter of Oswald and Baker ca. 90 seconds after the shots, happened (because three witnesses tell of it, four if Oswald himself is counted), but I think some confusion can be cleared up by a better reconstruction of Oswald's movements. Here is what I think: Oswald on the first floor for lunch went up and bought his coke before the parade/shots. Then he came back down to the first floor again. This was normal and expected, to eat with his lunch. He then came out unobtrusively to the front landing as PM. He learns that JFK has been shot, and goes into flight mode. (I don't think his flight was seeking to escape law enforcement, or because he was the assassin.) He wants to leave without being noticed, which cannot be done by walking out through the front with all those people. He goes back to the domino room, gets his gray jacket, then walks up the front stairway at the SE corner of TSBD, to the second floor, intending to cross to the stairway at the rear to descend and out a rear door as little seen as possible. His intent (not to get a coke but to exit the building in that manner) did not succeed because he saw himself about to run into an officer (Baker and Truly), whereupon he suddenly reversed, which Baker saw as suspicious and accosted him. Oswald then crossed the second floor back the way he came, passing Mrs. Reid who told him JFK was shot and saw him with a coke. This post-shots second visit to the second floor was not for the purpose of getting a coke for lunch or after lunch, but was Oswald's sudden explanation of why he was there (he does not say that he had gone up to the second floor in order to descend to the first floor in order to leave the building--the true reason; instead he cites the coke reason). Oswald then descended again by the SE stairway, slipped out the front door telling the "secret service" man/ or reporter where a phone was, and slipped around the corner of the TSBD north on Houston, out of sight. Geneva Hines on the second floor told of being away from her desk, at the Southwestern Publishing Company's offices looking out the window at that time, so did not see Oswald pass through either way on the second floor.

Frazier who is out on the sidewalk talking and looking the other way does not see him slip out the front and go around the corner of the building. Oswald crosses the street to the east side of Houston and heads south on Houston again, and when Frazier does see him (as he told later) it looked to Frazier like Oswald had come out from the rear of the TSBD. Oswald was simply exiting and getting to Oak Cliff on his own as evasively as possible.

I think the rifle had been Oswald's, was in Ruth Paine's garage, was removed by Oswald from his belongings in Ruth Paine's garage to have its original scope put back on, on Nov. 11, 1963 at the Furniture Mart and Irving Sports Shop, with Lee taking Ruth's car without Ruth's knowledge that day (the only occasion Lee did that). It was not a different rifle or a different scope or no rifle and no scope that happened at the Irving Sports Shop, but Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano with the original scope reinstalled which had come with the rifle, which he had taken off but now was getting put back on, prepping it for resale or conveyance not for his own use. I think the rifle then went with Oswald to his rooming house in Oak Cliff where he had it there for nine days, unseen by housekeeper Earlene those nine days, before selling or conveying the rifle approximately 10 am Thu Nov 21, at a meeting location near his rooming house. The rifle was then conveyed by the receiver to Dealey Plaza at about 10:30 am that morning and, sometime later that day or night, surreptitiously introduced into the TSBD unknown to Oswald, for use by a "noisy" shooter, not Oswald, the next day firing at JFK and intending to be seen doing so, with the rifle which up to the day before had been in the possession of Oswald, and would be traced to Oswald after the shooting. The shooter did not run down the stairs, did not take the elevator down, did not rappel down an empty elevator shaft et al, nobody saw him--the only logistics that make sense is that the shooter remained on the sixth floor (corroborated by visual eyewitnesses and by the fifth floor TSBD workers who heard no running upstairs or anyone coming down the stairs), and blended in with the law enforcement and reporters who were soon swarming the sixth floor, and by that means exited with them. 

The quiet way Oswald moved around and went about his work not talking to anyone unless spoken to (many witnesses said that) and the brief amount of time he was PM in the doorway--not more than ca. 30-40 seconds?--and the inability of Frazier to remember who PM was, says to me Frazier, like everyone else in those moments riveted by the shock of hearing shots fired at the presidential limousine, did not notice Oswald's presence. That Oswald did not blurt out to reporters Fri night at the press conference that he was out front, is because he only belatedly and to his surprise realized he was being seriously accused of killing JFK. He did tell his interrogators he was out there, and with a good lawyer would have made that defense in court. As for his visiting family members--his brother, Marina, his mother--he told them don't believe the so-called evidence against him but he also believed all his conversations were being monitored so he did not go into telling his visiting family members specifics. 

So that is a theory of the case in which Oswald as Prayer Man is not only correct but could become possibly more comprehensible.

But now I have a question (and please forgive if this has already been answered elsewhere): according to the Sixth Floor Museum, statement from Gary Mack of March 25, 2015 via Darrell Hastings, there is a first-generation copy of the Darnell film in their custody. I understand you believe better-quality information could be obtained from that film than presently accessible. Yet for some reason there is no access for research purposes to that film, citing "copyright". I see this from Gary Mack:

"NBC took the original Wiegman and Darnell films from the Dallas NBC affiliate to New York following the assassination weekend. Whether the network still has the original Darnell film is unknown, but as a former employee I know the affiliate does not have it or a copy. Nor does Jimmy Darnell.

"Fortunately, a first-generation 16mm copy print was made in Dallas over that weekend and it is in the Museum's collection; however, the Museum cannot do anything with it until copyright issues are resolved. It'll happen, and sooner rather than later." (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/page/109/)

 

When I see this, I think, whoooah! What is going on?

Obviously, for starters, "sooner rather than later" has turned out, now in 2021 six years later, unfulfilled.

All I can say is: it is just customary and basic protocol in fields of scholarship working on primary materials or archaeological artifacts, that qualified researchers are to be allowed access, by permission. That is just normal and supported by professional ethics statements of scholarly societies.

So my question is very simple, in two parts: (a) who owns the copyright on that film? and (b) has a qualified researcher sought formal permission from the copyright owner (not the Sixth Floor Museum or Gary Mack), and been formally refused, directly by the copyright owner? 

I see reference to an ROKC petition, etc. but that is not quite an answer directly to the "a" and "b" of my question. 

If this has not been done, I have a modest suggestion: have a legal firm research and identify and establish who is the legal copyright owner, and write a letter on behalf of you (Andrej Stancak) to that legal copyright owner, asking for the access you need, for research purposes. Get an answer. 

If the answer is "no", publicize it to high heaven. I have been through this whole issue of lack of access to valuable research materials, with the Dead Sea Scrolls. I was filmed on a Nova television program in the fall of 1991 as the first student in the world to view heretofore-inaccessible microfilms of the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls which had just been publicly released by the Huntington Library in California to the world. The action of the Huntington Library broke the access issue in that case.

But back to the Darnell film sitting in the Sixth Floor Museum. Maybe the answer--if the copyright owner is NBC, if the copyright owner, NBC, was asked--might be yes.

Could this access issue with the Darnell film be as simple as: a request to the copyright owner has not yet been made?

Is it possible it would be as simple to get access as that?

I have respected the work of Albarelli but I see a serious issue of authenticity versus forgery in the Pierre Lafitte datebook which is central to this posthumously published Coup in Dallas. I think a better explanation of basis for belief that those datebook pages were written in 1963 prior to the assassination is needed than the explanation offered by Leslie Sharp in the only part of the book I can see which addresses this most fundamental starting question of authenticity: pp. 571-574, "Coauthor's Statement on the Provenance and Authenticity of the Lafitte Datebook".

This statement merits careful reading. In it, coauthor Sharp tells of her own earlier serious doubts as to authenticity and reasons why, before ending with a full endorsement of its authenticity. 

Sharp recounts that her original reaction to seeing the datebook shown her by Albarelli was "a mixture of awe and skepticism, both of which I did not hesitate to share with Hank". She determined "that this instrument and the contents therein are either a brilliant fraud, or a miraculous find". 

Sharp continues, "After Hank passed away, I experienced levels of doubt and uncertainty equal to the most severe critic". She lists a series of reasons which prima facie call authenticity into serious doubt.

• "During one phase, I realized that the timeline Hank left in his Frank Olson book, A Terrible Mistake, reflects dates tied to the Lafitte material that sometimes contradicted my understanding of the trajectory of events."

In other words, minor chronological errors (apparently) in A Terrible Mistake are echoed in the supposed Pierre Lafitte datebook. But Albarelli did not know of the Pierre Lafitte datebook when he wrote A Terrible Mistake. A Terrible Mistake was published in 2011. Although Leslie Sharp does not directly say so, the question is raised whether A Terrible Mistake written in 2011 was a source utilized by the author of the Pierre Lafitte datebook, since it reflects the same chronological peculiarities (though Leslie Sharp does not give specifics). But if so, that would mean the Pierre Lafitte datebook was written some time after 2011, and not in 1963.

• Albarelli before his death had arranged for a London-based professional handwriting/document analysis as well as an international ink expert, to study the physical artifact and render a professional opinion. There were "issues" unresolved at the time Albarelli died, and Leslie Sharp reports that there is no disclosure of results or findings and no known prospect of any, by contractual agreement with the owners of the datebook (not named but presumably family members). "The London professional would only state that he remains under a Nondisclosure Agreement and could not comment".

This is not encouraging. One possible interpretation is an outside professional opinion was sought but the opinion or initial provisional opinion rendered was not to the liking of the customer, and therefore that finding will never be known. Reference is made to the handwriting analysts requesting further samples of Pierre Lafitte's handwriting than initially provided and such samples not being provided.

• "Of deep concern were those parties in a position to confirm the provenance but refused to cooperate; every feasible effort to secure a definitive statement has gone unfulfilled."

Again, not encouraging. 

What then changed Leslie Sharp's mind, tipped it in her assessment, convinced her that it was genuine? She gave two reasons: (1) Hank Albarelli could not have been duped. "He would not be a victim of fraud". This is simply asserted, explained with this non-explanatory statement: "In my relatively informed opinion, Hank would never have subjected himself to ridicule were the datebook to be determined to be the equivalent of the 'Hitler Diaries'. That is, Albarelli would never willingly subject himself to ridicule if it was fraudulent, therefore the datebook is genuine. Some might find this syllogism less than satisfying.

In my own field, the Dead Sea Scrolls, there have been high-profile cases in recent years of major-name senior scholars and prestigious museums taken in by forgeries--forgeries done by professionals who are very good at it. It is not the original Dead Sea Scrolls of the late 1940s and 1950s I am referring to here--those were genuine. I am referring to a series of alleged later secretly-privately-owned Dead Sea Scroll fragments of biblical manuscripts, as well as other sensational alleged archaeological finds from the legal and illegal antiquities market, sold to collectors and museums in the 2000s and 2010s (or appraisal obtained at high dollar value for tax deductions when donated, a more sophisticated mechanism for profit through charitable giving) which finally became exposed as large-scale, industrial-strength fraud. Similarly a "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" manuscript discovery in 2012 was endorsed by a Harvard professor as genuine and received much attention and learned discussion until a brilliant piece of investigative-detective work exposed it as a con job in 2016, with much professional embarrassment (https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-catholic-porn-producer-scammed-harvard-professor-with-gospel-of-jesus-wife). Many more examples could be cited. 

There is that saying in the investment world: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", and the same high bar of skepticism is merited toward a document which purports to give sensational diary-like cryptic entries with names and dates of the JFK assassination plot, first discovered over fifty years later, whose argument for authenticity is confidence that "Hank Albarelli would not be a victim of fraud". 

But Leslie Sharp gave a second explanation of basis, in addition to confidence that Albarelli would not be a victim of fraud: (2) "I have studied the contents of the datebook for more than two years and find it persuasive for similar (although more in-depth) reasons outlined by Dick Russell".

Dick Russell's reasons would be found in several pages of introductory material at the beginning of Coup in Dallas written by Dick Russell, "The Lafitte Datebook: A Limited Analysis", pp. ix-xiii. So I--we--go to there to find what reasons persuaded Dick Russell that it was authentic. And the answer is: no reason is given apart from a listing of ways in which if it is authentic then it is very significant. Well yes, but is it authentic is the prior question. Here is Dick Russell:

"Pending verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts, I have carefully reviewed the 1963 datebook allegedly written by Jean Pierre Lafitte. Based on the entries I have seen, cryptic as many of them are (no doubt intentionally), this is a crucial piece of new evidence indicating a high-level conspiracy that resulted in the assassination that November 22 of President John F. Kennedy. Many of the names mentioned are familiar to me (. . .) A number of these names, however, were not known publicly in 1963 and for more than a decade thereafter. Thus, assuming the datebook entries were indeed set down at that time by Lafitte, this adds substantial credibility to the likelihood that the document contains never-before-revealed information about a conspiracy involving accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as well as his own killer, Jack Ruby. (. . .) I believe that this datebook fills in many gaps about what really happened on November 22, 1963 (. . .) I believe, presuming the datebook is verified as having been  written by Lafitte in 1963, that this constitutes probably the strongest evidence that has ever come to light of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy."

In the "Foreward" to the book by Dick Russell (pp. v-vi), the authenticity of the Pierre Lafitte 1963 datebook is assumed, not argued, and its importance emphasized:

"The book you are about to read contains the strongest evidence ever published of a high-level conspiracy by the military-industrial complex and its ultra-right-wing-allies to assassinate President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. As an author who has spent years researching and writing three books on the subject, I state that unequivocally. The narrative by H. P. Albarelli Jr., coauthored with Leslie Sharp and Alan Kent, is based upon a 1963 datebook, or desk diary, kept by a mysterious, deep-cover intelligence operative named Jean Pierre Lafitte (. . .) I'll let the authors describe how he gained access to the datebook. It is eerie to see this come to light after all these years--a template, albeit intentionally cryptic, for the diabolical planning resulting in a coup d'etat that haunts our national psyche (. . .) Lafitte's datebook, a faux leather-bound red volume with a vintage N azi coin taped to the inside front cover, is of immeasurable importance toward unraveling the takeover that took place that terrible day in Dallas (. . .)"

To cut to the chase, Dick Russell gives no reason for believing it is genuine other than it contains important information if it is. Based on that--the significance of its contents if true--Dick Russell concludes "this is a crucial piece of new evidence", i.e. genuine, not forged. (The apparent logic being that surely no forgery would have such interesting content, therefore it is genuine.) Leslie Sharp says her reasons for believing are similar to Dick Russell's. None of the other writers in the book address the issue of authenticity.

My reaction is it sounds too good to be true.

14 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Greg:

did you actually see the photograph of Mrs. Sarah Stanton? She was a huge lady, weighing 300+ pounds, very obese, and she had thick, blonde hair. While you are entitled to any opinion regarding Prayer Man's identity, you would need to expain why Prayer Man had dark hair, not the blonde, thick hair of Mrs. Stanton. I also do not which to hijack this thread, so you do not need to answer. There is a thread on Prayer Man (quoted in my earlier post in this thread), in case you would like to convince the Forum that Stanton was Prayer Man.

Andrej, I read the thread and I admit that hairline, if that is signal not static, looks male pattern not a woman's. You could be right its Oswald. Why I thought it might be Sarah Stanton is because it is certain she was in that group on the stairs, Wesley Frazier says was standing very close by him, and where else is she then, plus an impression that Prayer Man could look obese, however the hairline argues it is a man, so I don't know. I was intrigued by your work on comparing dark patches on C151 and the Prayer Man garment. The object held at the end of PM's right hand looks to me like it could be a ceramic cup of coffee, with the left hand cupping it for warmth, but that is just a guess. If the object is a camera that would seem to weigh against an Oswald identity given that there is no known camera with Oswald at the TSBD. The problem with moving from argument from plausibility to certainty on an Oswald identification of Prayer Man seems above all to be the poor resolution of the photo. I have just been burned myself in confusing static with signal in a photo on another matter, with what I thought was signal (human writing on an artifact, where I made many hand drawings of what looked to be human-made marks), which turned out to be a mixture of signal and static and mistaken, made clear from a vastly superior photo. In addition to the difficulties with the quality of the Prayer Man photos (I respect your efforts in trying to deal with that), there is also the absence of witnesses putting Oswald on those steps (though I thought you made decent responses on that point in your Jan 18, 2021, and March 31, 2021 postings on page 17 of that thread). What makes the Oswald identity possible is the inability to positively identify the figure as someone else (and there are not too many candidates internal to TSBD left unaccounted for to choose from), and Oswald's testimony via the arrest interrogation reports and other witnesses which put him in proximity even if not confirmed directly on those steps. So for me at this point it is just uncertain, I don't know.

57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't see how anyone could realistically ask for more proof of this.  I would appreciate it if Greg would PM the celebrating Roe before he spreads the wrong information all over Facebook.

I did, and I apologized for that mistake for which I, not Steve Roe, am responsible. 

8 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Oswald in a with t-shirt is an argument for two Oswalds at the TSBD and strengthens the Roger Craig story of Oswald (or his look alike identified as the man at the DPD) seen by Craig entering a Rambler.

I know the Prayer Man identification is highly controversial (and do not wish for Gil's topic to go in that direction) but to the limited extent I have looked at that question it seems to me that is in the end most likely Sarah Stanton, primarily due to the testimony of Wesley Frazier as well as the white T-shirt Oswald was wearing according to the testimony of Mrs. Reid 1-2 minutes after the assassination. If Prayer Man were Oswald then that photo would necessarily be after Oswald had descended to the first floor again after being seen by Mrs. Reid, and had put on his red shirt, prior to leaving the TSBD altogether.   

On 11/12/2021 at 9:21 PM, Pat Speer said:

The conclusions Gil came to were pretty much the same conclusions I came to when I looked into this a decade ago and received the only color photos of the shirt. (In opposition to what Andres says, the Archives assured me multiple times that the WC's evidence photos were all black and white, and that no color photos were available, and that, as a consequence, they would take color photographs of CE 151, for a price... They assured me as well that once I paid for the photos they would be my private possession to do with as I wished. I was dealing directly with the head guy--whose name escapes me--overseeing the JFK records. It seems ludicrous to me that he would put me through six months of rigamarole going back and forth if color photos were available to begin with... But stranger things have happened.) 

In any event, your post, Greg, reminded me of something discussed in my chapter that Gil either overlooked or left out. Stombaugh testified that the fibers were found ON TOP of the fingerprint powder. This means the fibers were not old fibers. Stombaugh alibied that the fibers were probably dangling from the butt plate when the DPD dusted the rifle, and that they got wrapped around the butt plate ON TOP of the fingerprint powder in the process. But this was obvious nonsense. 

Pat I just reread all 88 pages of your 4b on "Threads of Evidence" (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence), simply stunning. The match of the tuft of fibers on the rifle with fibers from C150, the brown shirt on Oswald at his arrest (and not a match with any other Oswald shirt), and the testimony of Stombaugh that the fibers were recent, is too much coincidence: either Oswald fired the rifle while wearing C150 or it was planted on the rifle, one or the other. What you bring out is devastating that Oswald was not wearing C150 that morning whether on the sixth floor or anywhere else in the TSBD. Oswald said he had worn a red shirt to work that morning, said he changed his shirt at the rooming house (according to Fritz's handwritten notes, and Thomas Kelley's notes), and you show a color photo of C151, a maroon (red) shirt found at his rooming house exactly where Oswald said he had put the red shirt he had worn to work that day--and it is red. Is it true that it took until your own efforts as late as 2016 before any color photo of C151 became publicly known? If so, that is just astonishing--because visually one can see that it is just obvious that was the red shirt Oswald said he had worn that morning. C150 is brown not red, and C151 is red--reddish or maroon--not brown. C151 was the shirt Oswald wore to work that morning from Irving. But as the testimony from the TSBD witnesses indicate, Oswald would have taken off his shirt upon arrival to work, hung it in the "domino room" on the first floor, and worked in a white T-shirt only, just as on other days, and as seen that day. He did not have any shirt on at 12:30 pm except a white T-shirt. Therefore Oswald could not have had a tuft of fibers from C150--which at that moment was not being worn by anyone, at the rooming house on Beckley--caught on the metal plate at the butt of the rifle while firing the rifle at 12:30. The white T-shirt only being worn by Oswald at the time of the assassination is as solid as any multiple witness testimonies can be--Mrs. Reid, Shelley, Truly, Jarman. Oswald wore C151 to work, took it off and it was in the first floor domino room while Oswald worked in his white T-shirt, seen ca. 12:32 pm in his white T-shirt by Mrs. Reid on the 2nd floor 1-2 minutes after the assassination, then Oswald returned to the first floor, put on his shirt, C151, the red shirt, and left the TSBD wearing that shirt, C151, which he changed along with his pants at the rooming house on Beckley in Oak Cliff at about 1 pm, changing into C150 the brown shirt, the shirt which the FBI said showed a match of fibers to the tuft caught on the rifle found at the TSBD.

You bring out compelling argument that never-reported tests were done on the shirts--C150 and C151--for gunshot residue. Why not reported or disclosed? Your proposed explanation makes sense: that like the cheek paraffin test, the shirt gunshot residue tests may have indicated Oswald had not fired a rifle that day while wearing C150. That finding would have impeached what had from about day two become central to the narrative, the fiber match of C150 to the rifle, and if C150 was then excluded by a means of testing as having gunshot residue on it, that would not only have looked exculpatory for Oswald but even beyond that would have inevitably looked to the world (in this case arguably accurately) like the fiber match from C150 may have been planted on the rifle, part of what in the UK is called "stitching up" a suspect with some evidence by law enforcement in order to assist in getting a conviction. Then you bring out the stunning fact of the FBI agents showing only the brown shirt C150, and not C151 the red shirt Oswald said he had worn to work that morning--to the TSBD witnesses to identify (and the rejections of identification of C150 from those witnesses). 

You bring out the testimony of witnesses who saw a man with a rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD having seen that man in a light-colored shirt, not in agreement with the brown shirt C150 whose tuft of fiber the FBI reported finding on the rifle consistent with a wearer of C150 firing that rifle that day. 

Especially interesting is your putting together (at p. 17 of 88 on my printout of your 4b; section titled "Was Something Up Their Sleeve?") the document about the Secret Service in Dec 1963 receiving Oswald clothing including that red shirt (C161) from DPD from which the Secret Service intended to forward to "the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Lab"--and your connection of that (of which nothing further is known from documents on the Mary Ferrell site?) with a September 1966 forensics conference in which three scientists from the Laboratory of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS reported "test firings were made with foreign rifles, and paraffin lifts of hair and shoulders were examined for the presence of antimony and barium ... this work indicates there is a distinct possibility that the method can be applied to the detection of rifle firings"--and your suggestion that that 1966 conference report may be related to never-published, never-reported, testing done by that lab on Oswald clothing for gunshot residue from the JFK assassination Mannlicher-Carcano. After restudying your 4b, I do not think that tuft of fibers from C150 (in agreement with C150, to be technical) of recent origin on Oswald's rifle was caused by handling of that rifle by Oswald prior to Nov 22, 1963. And a lot of evidence pretty much establishes "beyond reasonable question" that Oswald was not wearing C150 at the time of the assassination, which raises the question of how that tuft of fibers came to be on the rifle.

4 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Sorry, not true, not Robert Frazier's initials! See how clear the R and the F look when the bullet was digitally recreated in a computer https://www.nist.gov/image/kennedy-stretcher-bullet-digital

 

You are right Micah. The NIST photo, which I had not seen until your link, is a superior photo, and it does show "RF" in the position I was reading "ELT" from the NARA photos. I was mistaken, and I apologize. With that ELT reading removed--because it clearly is RF and not ELT in the superior NIST photo--I have to eat crow. With that reading of Elmer Todd's initials gone, there do not seem to be Elmer Todd initials anywhere identifiable on C399 in the photos. Or if there are, someone else will have to find them, because I cannot now.

Stu Wexler also privately informed me that two well-known names did go to the National Archives to check the artifact, C399, in person, and found no Elmer Todd initials. And without any question, in-person examination of the artifact is superior to any photograph.   

I apologize for the error.

Update: Nov 13, 2021-- a superior photo of C399 from NIST brought to attention by Micah has shown my analysis below on C399 from NARA photos is incorrect, and I retract the below. gd

 

 

 

The argument is convincing about Oswald's change of clothes at the rooming house, both shirt and pants. However it does not logically follow that the fibers from C150 found on the 6th floor rifle--Oswald's rifle--necessarily were therefore planted by police. Since it was Oswald's rifle it is not surprising that fibers from a shirt belonging to Oswald would be found on it, from his having held or fired the rifle at some point during his ownership and possession of it, but that could be from any time in the past. What the significance is however is, if Oswald did change his clothes including his shirt in Oak Cliff newly into C150 at ca. 1 pm as you bring out, then the fibers from C150 found on the rifle could not have been from Oswald's use of that rifle at ca. 12:30 pm that day, since Oswald was not wearing C150 at the time the shots were fired of the assassination. 

In other words, planting of fibers from C150 on the rifle is not necessary to the argument here, as I see it.

On the bus transfer, as you rightly point out it is common and routine when changing clothes to transfer contents of one pocket into the pocket of the other, such as that bus transfer. I interpret the significance of the bus transfer (I realize you have a different interpretation but anyway this is mine) is that Oswald intended to use that transfer to catch a southbound bus on Beckley to get to the Theatre. He first feinted (intentionally) in housekeeper Earlene's view as if he was headed north, letting her see him--knowing she would see him--waiting at the bus stop heading north, before (out of her sight) moving to catch a southbound. However for some reason he did not use the bus transfer and paid for the southbound bus out of pocket, I assume, as the explanation for why the bus transfer remained in his shirt pocket unused. I realize the southbound bus trip on Beckley is unverified, but it seems to be the explanation involving the least number of anomalies for how he did get to the Texas Theatre.