Greg Doudna

Sandy, this business of large-scale subornation to perjury of civilian witnesses spontaneously after the fact, adhered to for life by those suborned and without a single document or confession ever having come to light in all this time telling of such organized subornation of civilian witnesses to perjury, just seems far-fetched. Does it not give you pause that no witness has ever credibly later told of this kind of organized subornation to perjury—such a serious scandal if it ever were to be credibly accused—that you and others seem to promiscuously invoke as a way of reconciling testimony which conflicts with a reconstruction? For example, when you say “Frazier was allowed to suggest that the bag was too short to hold a gun” as a concession to him to ease his conscience (over agreeing to be suborned to lie about other things which he knew was wrong), who do you mean exactly who “allowed” him or gave him permission on that back then? Who was running this subornation to perjury of Frazier of which you speak? Name? Agency? Please be specific? Do you believe Frazier today, sixty years later, is still under the control of someone whose permission he would need if he were to change his story? Does that really make sense to you? That Frazier is not free today to say whatever he feels like? Also, all the stories from officers who knew of Buell Frazier’s polygraph the night of Nov 22 said Frazier turned up truthful under that questioning. Have you factored that into your belief that Frazier was being compelled to fabricate testimony by a handler? And again, who do you think that handler was then, and today? I don’t think Buell Frazier had any such handler suborning him to perjury. I think he is credible and honest and a decent man and always has been. He would respond to someone official telling him to lie the same way he responded to Fritz’s bullying attempt to get him to confess, by refusal even under duress. That is who Buell Frazier was, and is. As I just wrote on the Ralph Yates thread—and I know my post is long there but I can’t help that, the content is important—Frazier did not invent either the existence of nor did he err on the length of the bag carried by Oswald to work Fri Nov 22, and this is one of the most critical points going to the matter of Oswald’s guilt or innocence there is.

The case for Yates' hitchhiker having actually been Oswald--and Oswald innocent of the assassination I have become convinced that there are no substantive grounds or compelling reason to suppose there was any instance of impersonation of Oswald in Oct-Nov 1963 in Dallas; all the cases either were Oswald or mistaken identifications but in no case is there sound reason to conclude someone intentionally presented as Oswald who wasn't. The following is excerpted and developed from what I wrote on another thread. In the case of the Yates' hitchhiker, consider that that hitchhiker really was Oswald. The case for the Yates hitchhiker having been Oswald is: first, Yates positively identified Oswald as his hitchhiker from seeing photos of Oswald after the assassination. Second, the hitchhiker was dropped off by Yates in Dealey Plaza on Houston just next to Oswald's workplace at the Texas School Book Depository, and Yates last saw the man walking with his package crossing Elm Street in the direction of the TSBD. And third, the timing of when Yates picked him up at the N. Beckley entrance of the R.L. Thornton Expressway, at about 10:30 am Thu Nov 21, was about 30 minutes after Oswald was independently witnessed at the Dobbs House Restaurant on N. Beckley near the rooming house eating breakfast at about 10:00 am according to the waitress who served him (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=572, and Mary Dowling, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95673#relPageId=18). Never mind that Oswald is supposed to be at work at the TSBD at those hours. The evidence says he wasn't that particular morning. Yates said Oswald was carrying a package, estimated by Yates to be about 3-4 feet long. According to Dempsey, Yates said Oswald told him the package had curtains in it. That's what he said Oswald told him. Forget the part about Oswald showing Yates a backyard photo and asking Yates if someone like that could shoot the president. In a followup interview Yates told the FBI that did not happen that way, correcting that part of his first report. Forget the part about Oswald doing anything incriminating in that ride with Yates, no matter how spooked Yates was and how tragic the outcome was on Yates in the aftermath of the assassination. During that ride with Oswald, there was a discussion of the president's arrival, and discussion of the possibility that he could be shot from a window, in a discussion Yates says he initiated with mention of the Adlai Stevenson reception several weeks earlier. Everybody in Dallas was talking and wondering about that, that was not an unusual conversation. Yates took part in that conversation and Yates was no assassin. It only became considered unusual retrospectively after the assassination when Oswald was believed to have done it. Similar conversations must have occurred a thousand times in Dallas that morning of that nature. Yates remembers Oswald asking if he knew if there had been any last-minute change of route of the parade. Again, that is the most innocent of question and only takes on sinister meaning in retrospect post-assassination. Imagine that Oswald actually is innocent, that the Yates' hitchhiker really was Oswald; and that there was nothing sinister about what happened on that ride beyond Oswald wanting to get himself and a package of fabric for curtains from Point A to Point B at a certain time of day and hitchhiking as his means of doing so. Everyone has considered that either Yates imagined it was Oswald, or it was an impersonator with a package intended to look like it was a rifle and incriminate Oswald. Imagine that is all wrong, has all been misunderstood. Imagine the story is more mundane than has previously been considered: that it was Oswald and the package Oswald was carrying had in it what Oswald told Yates it did: curtains (or fabric for curtains). The need of Oswald for curtains was not fictitious but real, from a reporter's Nov 23, 1963 photos showing landlord and landlady Mr. and Mrs. Johnson hammering what had been a crashed super-long curtain rod in Oswald's room on N. Beckley, back up with nails and hammer. Here are both Johnsons standing on the bed, Mr. Johnson hammer in hand, nailing that visible bent curtain rod back up, Sat Nov. 23, 1963. Those curtains therefore had become inoperable at some point before Nov 23, 1963. Oswald's room faced north into the side of another house, wide open with three sets of windows. If Oswald was used to closed curtains for privacy at night, this was something which needed to be solved immediately, not something optional or which could be postponed, and it had nothing to do with Oswald moving out or into a new apartment; it had entirely to do with his privacy in the evenings when he would spend time in that room with curtains closed for privacy. And if the crashing of that super-long curtain rod had happened only 2-3 days earlier and Oswald had decided to fix it himself, without telling Mrs. Johnson or housekeeper Earlene what he was doing, no wonder Mrs. Johnson would not know why that bent curtain was inoperable, would have assumed mistakenly that police or reporters the previous day had wrecked it. But it does not matter what Mrs. Johnson's speculation was as to the cause. What matters is that that was the case, and its timing (recently before the morning of Nov 23). Oswald was separately reported bringing other curtain materials to the location of his workplace at this very same time, referring of course to Oswald's unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, which Oswald told Buell Frazier was for the purpose of picking up curtain rods. Oswald may have taken 2 out of an original 4 unused individual-window curtain rods out of Ruth Paine's garage (leaving 2 remaining in the garage, none in use) the morning of Nov 22. Buell Frazier has maintained from day one to the present day, his entire life, that the length of what Oswald carried that morning of Nov 22 definitely was ca. 27 inches, and not the length needed to carry a 34-inch broken-down Mannlicher-Carcano. That length told credibly and clearly by Buell Frazier, ca. 27 inches, unknown to Buell was the exact length of Ruth Paine's curtain rods in her garage, and Buell Frazier has said that that is what Oswald told him they were. Oswald denied to Captain Fritz that he brought curtain rods or that he had told Frazier that is what he was carrying, but he did tell Frazier that, and there may have been other reason for Oswald's untrue answer to Fritz about that (and his taking those curtain rods without permission from Ruth Paine's garage) having nothing to do with the assassination. The reasoning that if it were true Oswald had carried curtain rods he would have said so to Fritz because that would be his alibi, so commonly raised, assumes as its premise a point which hardly anyone has questioned: that Oswald was aware that he was suspected of having carried the rifle to work the morning of Nov 22. The world knew Oswald was suspected of that because it was in the news, but I have seen no evidence that Oswald had been informed or had any awareness or idea that that suspected of him. Can anyone cite evidence showing that? Oswald did not have a clue he needed an alibi (which in this case would be, the truth) for what Frazier saw him carry to work, which everyone unknown to Oswald was suspecting was something different! There is an unrefuted and uninvestigated hearsay claim in an FBI report that some seamstresses at McKeel Sportswear (not "McKell" as misspelled in FBI interview reports), located on the second floor of the Dal-Tex building across from the TSBD, knew Oswald (link is below). That element of that hearsay claim could be more easily dismissed if it were not for the fact that the FBI questioned three seamstresses of McKeel on the basis of that hearsay report and did not ask any of them whether they knew Oswald, in an investigation in which the question was relevant since it was a report of a possible Oswald sighting in relation to a weapon conveyance on Tue Nov 19 in a parking area behind the TSBD. Putting that to one side, a logical place for Oswald to go for a curtains-seamstress need would be the nearest seamstresses to his place of work, McKeel Sportswear across the street. Actually there was probably more than one company with seamstresses in the Dal-Tex Building, but McKeel Sportswear is a known one and the first such one would encounter going up the Dal-Tex building. And Oswald needed curtains for his windows and he may have decided to accomplish that by making individual-window curtains requiring the need of a seamstress. Perhaps Oswald made inquiry at McKeel Sportswear concerning his curtains/seamstress need, learned what it would cost and what he needed to do (what he needed to bring) so that they could accomplish what was needed. Suppose he made that inquiry on Wednesday. Thursday morning in accord with what he was told, he buys and brings in fabric for the new curtains to the location of his workplace (this would be the package he carried hitchhiking with Yates, as he told Yates, "curtains"); Thursday night he goes to Irving, obtains curtain rods there, returns to the TSBD Friday morning with curtain rods, and either gave or intended to give them to a seamstress in the Dal-Tex building ... but an assassination of a president interrupted. Timeline The timeline of Oswald in the three days of Nov 20-22, 1963, makes good sense interpreted as a response to an urgent situation--the collapse of the superlong curtain rod with curtains over three individual windows in his room. It was not simply out of the goodness of Oswald's heart that he wished to remedy or repair that. It would be an issue of discomfort being in that lighted room at night without closed curtains. Rather than asking housekeeper Earlene or the landlady to fix it Oswald decided to fix it himself. Wednesday evening Nov 20, it is independently known that Oswald was at a nearby laundromat until closing time, Sleight's Speed Wash, 1101 N. Beckley. He was witnessed reading magazines there, not getting back to his room in the rooming house that night until after midnight (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=570). There is no need to doubt that Oswald probably was doing laundry, but all night? Or was he in addition to doing laundry hanging out there, preferring to be there as long as he could until at midnight he was told it was closing and he had to go? Could there be a factor that he did not enjoy being in his room at night without curtains closed and private? The curtains issue was so urgent, Oswald for the first time did not appear at work at the TSBD on time at 8:00 am on Thu Nov 21. It does not matter that his timesheet at TSBD shows him working the full day that day. There was no time-clock and unless someone proactively brought to attention of the TSBD time-records man that someone was missing, their normal times would be written in. And a factor working in Oswald's favor is that he was otherwise extremely reliable and punctual such that that kind of behavior and track record develops trust. I have heard baseball stories of umpires becoming so familiar with a certain major league hitter who never swung at a pitch thrown that was a "ball" that they would call a close one influenced by whether that hitter had swung or not, because of that track record. The point being, Oswald could well have been late on Thu Nov 21 and not noticed, or even if Shelley or someone remembered wondering where he was they would assume he was there somewhere because he always was. And the evidence Oswald did not go to work on time on Thu Nov 21 is substantial. A witness report from his waitress for breakfast at the Dobbs House Restaurant A report that Oswald bought tickets to a Dick Clark Show at the Top Ten Record store on Jefferson in Oak Cliff on what must have been the morning of Thu Nov 21 (since the morning of Fri Nov 22 of the report is not possible as to the time, and human errors in time memory are common in otherwise truthful witness accounts). Although that sounds like odd behavior for Oswald, according to the family of Dub Stark, owner of Top Ten Records, he knew Lee and Marina. And an employee who personally witnessed Oswald's arrest on Fri Nov 22 at the Texas Theatre a few stores away said it was the same arrested Oswald who had bought the Dick Clark show tickets. Oswald was unusually planning to be in Oak Cliff that weekend, the weekend of that show, instead of in Irving. Was Oswald planning a date? But if he bought the tickets Thu morning Nov 21 he could not have been at work at 8:00 a.m. at the TSBD that morning. The Yates report of picking up Oswald hitchhiking on the Thornton Expressway from the N. Beckley entrance, driving him to Houston Street across from the TSBD in Dealey Plaza, letting him off carrying a 3-4 foot package that Yates said Oswald told him was "window shades". Yates identified the hitchhiker unequivocally as Oswald on the basis of photos. Yates said the day of the hitchhiker was either Wed Nov 20 or Thu Nov 21, that he could not remember for sure which of those two days it was, in either case at ca. 10:30 a.m. The FBI found company records establishing that it was certainly Thursday Nov 21, not Wednesday, as to the date. And the timing and points of pickup and dropoff match Oswald. The "fantastic" elements in Yates' story of what was discussed by the hitchhiker are explicable in terms of Yates' mental condition and Yates' explicit clarifications retracting some of those elements in a following FBI interview, but the hitchhiker's existence itself and his identity as Oswald stands, without anything incriminating Oswald in the assassination in Oswald's actual conversation with driver Yates properly understood. Furthermore, Yates submitted voluntarily to a polygraph which found no intentional deception. From the FBI report of Dempsey Jones, Yates' coworker, whom Yates told about his hitchhiker before the assassination: "Jones said Yates told him he had picked up a boy in Oak Cliff and took this boy to Houston and Elm in Dallas. Yates said this boy had a package not described at that time, but after the death of the President, Yates described the package as a 'long package' and then on telling the facts over again, Yates said this man told him it was some window shades he was carrying for the company he (the man) had made." (FBI, Nov 27, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=425) Then upon getting to and starting work at the TSBD late that morning, estimate somewhere in the 10:30 am to 11:00 am range the morning of Thu Nov 21, Oswald immediately finds Buell Frazier and lines up a ride to Irving that evening after work. (Buell Frazier said Oswald asked him that in the morning of that day.) Oswald goes to Irving Thursday night, returns Fri morning Nov 22 to work at TSBD with Buell Frazier, with curtain rods, and intent to deliver the fabric material and curtain rods to a seamstress across the street in the Dal-Tex building. If Oswald's actions to resolve his curtains issue in his room began immediately following the crashing of the curtains in his room, the following timeline shows Oswald minimizing time spent in his room in evenings while taking action to get new curtains installed: Wednesday night, Nov 20--Oswald spends the entire evening until midnight in a laundromat reading before forced to go home when it closed. Thursday night, Nov 21--Oswald is not in his room at N. Beckley at all, is in Irving Friday night, Nov 22--if the assassination had not interrupted things, there is every reason to suppose Oswald would have anticipated having his new curtains ready by the end of that day or perhaps a half-hour later, ca. 5-6 pm, ready to be taken back with him by bus to Oak Cliff and he would be in his room with closed curtains again by that night. Although the major objection to this scenario is the overwhelming juggernaut of belief that Oswald carried a rifle from Irving the morning of Fri Nov 22, and not curtain rods, that belief becomes very equivocal in light of research I separately and newly showed in 2023 which establishes that Lee and Marina removed the rifle from the Ruth Paine garage on Mon Nov 11--eleven days before the assassination--and took it to where Lee repaired a damaged scope base installation in order to prepare that rifle for disposition. That study establishes that the rifle was in Ruth Paine's garage up to Mon Nov 11, but that there is no evidence that rifle was in Ruth Paine's garage, or in Oswald's possession, after Mon Nov 11 (https://www.scrollery.com/?page_id=1581). Therefore, since there is evidence Oswald did take curtain rods from Irving with him to the location of his workplace on the morning of Fri Nov 22 for reasons cited, and since there is no evidence that Oswald brought a rifle from Irving the morning of Fri Nov 22--the issue of when and how the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD got there, and whether Oswald was involved in putting it there, may need revisitation. What became of Oswald's curtain fabric and curtain rods? A possibility is Oswald on Friday morning Nov 22 after arriving to the TSBD with curtain rods obtained from Ruth Paine’s garage, momentarily set them inside the door Buell Frazier saw him enter at the rear loading dock, but outside the second door that was the rear entrance of the first floor area proper. He doesn’t hide the curtain rods package, just sets them down leaning against a wall outside that second door, because he is only going to be inside for a couple of minutes. He enters to use the restroom. (Which could be why he didn’t wait for Buell but walked on ahead, as Buell described. Remember Lee started out with coffee in Irving that morning, which has a diuretic effect—easy to imagine Lee having a need to visit a bathroom upon arrival.) That mission accomplished and washing up, he returns out the back, retrieves the curtain rods and walks them over to the the Dal-Tex building, gives them to one of the seamstresses there who had already agreed to cut and sew the curtains, and Lee either already had given her the fabric he had brought in the day before, or retrieved it to give to her with the curtain rods now. It would be logical to do this at the start of the workday, in order for the seamstress to have the maximum amount of time to have them done by the end of that day, which may have been the understanding. Lee then returns to work at the TSBD. This could be a possible answer to the question always asked: what became of the curtain rods? Maybe they were somewhere in the Dal-Tex Building. Of course this scenario requires some seamstress, whether at McKeel Sportswear or otherwise, not to later have told of it. The hearsay report the FBI received that seamstresses at McKeel Sportswear knew Oswald followed those women telling the hearsay source that they had been questioned by the FBI. The original FBI questioning of those women happened as a result of a visit to the FBI on Mon Nov 25, 1963, by one of the seamstresses at McKeel Sportswear, Henrietta Vargas. She had something to tell the FBI, and was accompanied by an attorney (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57694#relPageId=54). Was the attorney normal? As it stands in the FBI reporting, what Henrietta Vargas told could have had no possible criminal suspicion on herself, yet she brought an attorney. The later hearsay report deriving from these same women said that these women said they knew Oswald, although the source of the hearsay who knew those women says he did not say that and he did not think they knew Oswald (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95674#relPageId=70). The hearsay story that the seamstresses knew Oswald from eating lunch with him in a nearby restaurant and conversed in Spanish with him may be a garbled mistaken confusion of the hearsay source, David Torres', own meeting and conversations with these women, where he learned of what he told. Still, the FBI followup reports again did not report any inquiry or statement concerning whether Henrietta Vargas or any other of the seamstresses interviewed knew Oswald, an odd question not to ask responsive to a hearsay report which claimed some seamstresses at the Dal-Tex building did know Oswald. If the FBI had come upon something to do with curtains for Oswald in the Dal-Tex building in that investigation, would we know of it? Or might it be analogous to the citizen who turned in the find of the paper-bag revolver--a snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson with an apple and an orange in a paper bag--found on a downtown Dallas street early the morning of Sat Nov 23, which could have been the Tippit murder weapon tossed by Jack Ruby employee and self-confessed hitman Curtis Craford, out of a car driven by Ruby in which Craford was a passenger, in the early morning hours of Sat Nov 23 when Ruby had woken up Craford at the Carousel Club at 5 a.m. to go for a drive, before Craford said he decided spontaneously later that morning to hitchhike to Michigan. That paper-bag revolver was found by a citizen of Dallas who turned it in to the Dallas Police which informed the FBI. But both the Dallas Police and FBI withheld telling the press or the Warren Commission or the public of that find, and that revolver and its associated paperwork was lost and disappeared while in police custody. The Dallas resident who found it and turned it in, who is named in an FBI document that later came to light, never talked publicly about it.

This is conjecture but what if Ruby was part of the assassination; Oswald sold his rifle to Ruby circles and knew it but did not realize it was for an assassination of the president; upon learning like everyone else that President Kennedy was shot by hearing the shots, Oswald had some idea of what had gone down and believed his life was in immediate jeopardy from those circles to whom he had conveyed the rifle. That would account for his evasive departure from the TSBD to Oak Cliff and the Theatre, evasive all the way, so as not to be followed or tailed or found by people he believed could intend to kill him (a rational fear in light of an unsuccessful attempt at the Texas Theatre on Friday and a successful attempt Sunday morning). The other thing that calls for explanation is his denials of some things in interrogation instead of coming clean on those things. Commonly lying is considered consciousness of guilt of what is accused but that reasoning has convicted many innocent people who may lie for reasons other than guilt of what is accused. Unless there is conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt on independent grounds--meaning conclusive proof not that the rifle found on the sixth floor had been ordered by, possessed by, and had been Oswald's up until Nov. 11, but that he was the one who had fired it from the sixth floor on Nov 22 (or had knowingly assisted those who did)--Oswald's false answers on certain things in interrogation, while it looks bad for him, falls short of proof of guilt, unless all other possible reasonable explanation is excluded. One possibility is that non-denial denials in Oswald's actual replies were misunderstood by those who reported paraphrasing of his answers in their reports as denials. Either there was no taping of Oswald's replies or if there was it has never come to light, but if Oswald had come to trial, Oswald and his lawyer might have explanations for his answers, perhaps surprising ones, that might even be plausible to a reasonable observer. (For example, did Oswald say he never owned a rifle? Or did he deny he owned a rifle on Nov 22? Or did he have a reasoning under which he did not consider himself the owner of the rifle even when he did have it? Did Oswald say he never mail-ordered a rifle? Or did he consider the rifle not his at the time he ordered it? Did Oswald claim the backyard photos were faked? Or did he say, "you could have faked those!", which is not quite the same thing, in the second case not a denial even though interrogators writing up reports later would assume it was, etc.) Another possibility, a reason why many persons have lied even when innocent of the crime accused, not wanting to get other people in trouble, in Lee's case perhaps Marina. A third possibility is Oswald had been mixed up in some intelligence activity, not to his knowledge having to do with an assassination of the president, which he had been told was sensitive and he must under no circumstances break cover if arrested, for anything. In this scenario, he would understand he would be expected to stonewall and lie if necessary until intervention would get him released, and he would be cleared and that would be that, except it did not turn out that way.

Some other pages of Paul Seaton show he believes in the higher, cowlick location entrance wound. Apparently some of his web pages represent different arguments that have been made by different persons or at different times.

Boswell explains why the BOH photograph is authentic but the Parkland witnesses were not wrong in what they said they saw Boswell said there was gaping wound in the back of the head, and that the BOH photograph was genuine and unaltered, at the same time, because a flap of scalp had been pulled up over missing bone underneath to cover the wound. In his AARB testimony Boswell said he was one of the hands in that photo pulling scalp up to cover the large defect in the back of the head. In the case of the photo of the upper back wound, Boswell said the reason they pulled the scalp up was because if they had not, the scalp would have fallen the other way, like a flap, covering the area they wanted to photograph. This is not John Canal's explanation of the BOH photograph representing post-autopsy embalmers' work. No, Boswell said the BOH photographs were taken during the autopsy (and I think I remember Boswell saying it occurred early in the autopsy). This is Boswell saying the autopsists themselves, i.e. himself, pulled loose scalp up in that BOH photo (and in the rear upper-back wound photo). It looks like no gaping wound in the back of the head but Boswell said there was missing bone underneath, which would have been visible if they (Boswell and the others doing the autopsy) had not pulled that flap of scalp with hair still on it which covered it. This is not some theory of what might have happened. This is one of the autopsists themselves saying that is what happened, resolving the apparent contradiction, in a manner that does not involve photo alteration. Paul Seaton has discussed this and has added this further bit of interpretation: Seaton says the so-called cowlick "entrance hole" (the Ida Dox drawn hole) appearing to be in the cowlick area in the BOH photograph actually is the scalp entrance wound of the autopsists near the EOP and it was where the autopsists said it was, lower not at the cowlick. Seaton says the "cowlick" hole in the BOH photo is illusorily higher than it actually was because the scalp with the real hole in it was being pulled upward. The position in the BOH photo of that bullet hole in the scalp does not reflect its lower true location in the bone of the head. Seaton thinks the autopsists' near-EOP location of that bullet hole was correct, not the higher "cowlick" entry location of the later panels; Seaton says there never was any bullet hole in the bone at the cowlick area, and says pulling of the scalp flap upward is the explanation for that apparent discrepancy without invoking photo alteration in the BOH photo. Pat Speer, I have searched on your site (under search terms Seaton, and Boswell) and do not see where you discuss this particular explanation given by Boswell for accepting both the rear-of-the-head wound witness reports and the authenticity of the BOH photos without alteration. All the others here who think without question the BOH photo was altered intentionally and deceptively to cover up visible wound in the back of the head, I also do not see have addressed this testimony of Boswell on this matter, or the Paul Seaton supplementary argument on this matter. Paul Seaton's analysis is here: https://paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm. Boswell's AARB testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/boswella.htm. Both sides, please address. Thanks. ~ ~ ~ Here is Boswell (copied from the Seaton page link): " But the scalp was lacerated, & a pretty good sized piece of the frontal & right occipital portion of the skull had separated and were stuck to the undersurface of the scalp. " (Boswell, interviewed by Livingstone, High Treason 2, p196) Q So you're saying that on the fourth view, which are the photographs that are in your hand right now, the scalp has been pulled back and folded back over the top of the head in a way different from the way that they appeared in the third view, the superior view of the head? A Yes. Q Is that fair? A In the previous one, it was permitted just to drop. In this one, it's pulled forward up over the forehead, toward the forehead. Q Who, if you recall, pulled up the scalp for the photograph to be taken? [Colour autopsy photo. The yellow hashed area marks the approximate location of the skull defect according to a skull Boswell marked for the ARRB ] A There are about three of us involved here, because there are two right hands on that centimeter scale. I think that I probably was pulling the scalp up. (Boswell ARRB) " Well, this was an attempt to illustrate the magnitude of the wound again. And as you can see it’s 10 centimeters from right to left, 17 centi- meters from posterior to anterior. This was a piece of 10 centimeter bone that was fractured off of the skull and was attached to the under surface of the skull. . . There were fragments attached to the skull or to the scalp and all the three major flaps." (Boswell, interviewed by the HSCA FPP) Boswell is explicit that the skull is missing beneath the scalp in the autopsy picture, above : Q ...Now I'd like to ask you a question about what is underneath the scalp of what we are looking at now. Let's take the marking that appears towards the hairline right at the base of the neck, or where the hairline meets the neck. If we take the point above that, where would you say that the scalp is or that the skull will be missing underneath the scalp that we can view there? A Probably right about here. Q So you're-- A Just about the base of the ear. Q So you're pointing to approximately halfway up the ruler that we can observe and to the right of that small fragment, so the skull is missing-- A Right. (Boswell ARRB)

What was the long-term impersonator’s true name at birth and Social Security number, and mother’s true name and identity, according to the Harvey and Lee version of the impersonation idea? Did the impersonator marry or have a relationship with a significant other? In Dallas in Oct-Nov 1963? If the real Oswald was employed at the Book Depository, was the fake one, the impersonator, employed somewhere else in Dallas? I believe there was some early suspicion that the Soviets could kill a defector and send an impersonator in his stead back to the US, but that would be only one running around in the US upon return, not two of them, and that idea is falsified from Marguerite’s identification of her son (can’t fool a mother), as well as I understand by dental records. I don’t see any good evidence of impersonation of Oswald happening in Dallas on Oct-Nov 1963. It’s all either Oswald or mistaken identifications, full stop, from my study of all the cases.

Sandy I see things differently than you in a lot of ways but it is clear to me you have always attempted to be honest. I respect your comment here because it is what I see too. Pat Speer has done a massive amount of original research, all by his own policy and commendably put up on his website free access without attempting to monetize a thing. In the course of discussion of his research made minor errors from memory on nitpick level re the Custer x-rays. There is no way Pat is willfully attempting to deceive as Keven is trying to present.

[]

ANOTHER POSSIBILITY ON WHAT BECAME OF OSWALD’S CURTAIN RODS A possibility is Oswald on Friday morning Nov 22 after arriving to the TSBD with two curtain rods obtained from Ruth Paine’s garage, momentarily set them inside the door Buell Frazier saw him enter at the rear loading dock, but outside the second door that enters the first floor area proper. He doesn’t hide them or anything, just sets them down and leans them openly against a wall there, because he is only going to be gone for a couple of minutes. He enters to use the restroom, take a leak. (Could be that is why he didn’t wait for Buell but walked on ahead, as Buell described.) (Remember Lee started out with coffee in Irving that morning, which has a diuretic effect—easy to imagine Lee having a need for a bathroom upon arrival.) That mission accomplished and washing up, he returns out the back, retrieves the curtain rods and walks them over to the second floor of the Dal-Tex building, gives them to one of the women at McKeel who had already agreed to cut and sew the curtains and Lee had already given her fabric. Lee would logically do this at the start of the workday in order for her to have the maximum amount of time in order to have them done by 5:00 that day which may have been the idea. Lee then returns to work at the TSBD. This could be a possible answer to the question always asked: if Lee did bring curtain rods, what became of them? Of course this scenario requires the woman at McKeel not later to have told of it, but then none of the McKeel women ever were interviewed publicly. But suppose one of the women had curtain rods of Lee from the morning of Nov 22, then a few hours later there is the assassination of the president and by the end of the day Oswald has been arrested and accused of it. There already is testimony that the seamstresses at McKeel Sportswear were frightened to tell the police or FBI of the possible sighting of Lee receiving a rifle, and delayed doing so until the FBI found her and asked. Suppose one of the seamstresses did then tell of and hand over the curtain rods. However that does not go into written reports, at least the ones we know of. In this scenario it would be covered up, with the FBI doing the same as the routine and well-attested FBI request of witnesses in the case generally, of asking her not to talk about it. It would be analogous to the citizen who turned in the find of the paper-bag revolver found early the morning of Sat Nov 23 which may have been the true Tippit murder weapon, ditched by Curtis Craford, killer of Tippit, tossed out a car window, before Craford precipitously fled Dallas hitchhiking to Michigan that morning. That paper-bag revolver was turned in to the Dallas Police which withheld telling press or the Warren Commission of that find and that find was promptly lost and disappeared, known with security to have existed only because FBI documents later came to light telling details of it. (And that citizen who found it retreated into obscurity and never talked publicly about it.) The suggestion would be it is possible the same thing, or something like that, could have happened with any possible Oswald curtain rods belatedly turned in.

Thanks Tom. I signed up and have identified both of the other women! Henrietta A. Vargas, identified in a 1967 Dallas Polk's as occupation, "Smstrs McKell's Sports Wear". She was 11 years old in a 1940 census therefore about age 34 in 1963. The 1963 Polk's shows her at 3702 Cole Avenue as homeowner with 18 other persons of varying names and employments living there, suggesting she may have been renting rooms. I could not find an obituary for her but I found an obituary of her husband, Carlos M. Vargas, Jr., in 2021, and it refers to her death before his https://www.theangelusfuneralhome.com/obituary/carlos-vargas-jr. Frances M. Hernandez, is listed in the 1963 Dallas Polk's as an "Indry wkr RUMC", that is, industrial worker McKeel Sportswear (I don't know what the RU means), home address 1219 N. Washington Ave. The Polk's listing shows her living at that address alone. The FBI interview of her of Dec 31, 1963 gives a different address which goes to a street address which according to the 1963 Dallas Polk's does not exist. She appears in a 1950 census listing as age 24, occupation "sewing machine operator, drs. mfg."; married to Albert Hernandez, with a 2-year old son George A. In 1963 she would have been about 37. But husband Albert disappears from Dallas records whereas Frances remained in Dallas. Albert turns up in a 1998-2002 city directory in Hibbs, New Mexico. Albert died in 2017. Son George A. Hernandez died in 2019 with reference in his obituary having a brother named Hernandez who does not appear in Frances' obituary as a son of hers (https://www.echovita.com/us/obituaries/tx/dallas/george-a-hernandez-9528249). That suggests Albert remarried (hence the brother of George A. was really a half-brother from his father's new marriage, not a second child of Frances). Based on the 1963 Dallas Polk's with Frances living alone, the breakup of the marriage in the sense of Frances living separately seems to have occurred prior to Nov 1963. That Frances is named "Mrs." in her FBI interview reports probably means she was still legally married, not yet divorced, even though living separate from Albert. Frances Hernandez died in 2010 at age 84. In her obituary there is mention of her son but no mention of a present or past husband; evidently she never remarried. https://obits.dallasnews.com/us/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/name/frances-hernandez-obituary?id=10199367&_gl=1*rv9qnq*_gcl_au*MTk3MzM2NTAuMTcwNDQzNzAzNg.. The three McKeel Sportswear women are now all identified. All were mid-30s, none "young women" (as in early 20s). All three were married, though one appears to have been living separately from her husband even though still legally "Mrs." because not yet divorced.

A deeper dive on the McKeel Sportswear women rifle conveyance sighting After the report came to the FBI's attention of a reported gun transfer in a parking lot behind the TSBD, the FBI investigated but there are several subtleties about that investigation easy to miss. A first point is that the McKeel women were not interviewed only once but in three separate rounds, on Nov 26 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=279), again Dec 31 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10673#relPageId=107), and again on Jan 8 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10730#relPageId=129). And a second point is that it was not just the fact of a rifle sighting. Although the FBI reports do not ever say so explicitly, it is clear that what caused the women to be "frightened" and "reluctant to discuss the matter", "excited and confused" (in the report of Frances Hernandez, one of the McKeel women), was because at least one and possibly two of those women thought they recognized Oswald as the young slender man who had received a rifle out of a trunk of a car from an older, heavyset man. The three women were in a car exiting the parking lot. Apparently it was a car pool and one of the women was driving, the other two passengers. As they attempt to exit they are stopped behind a 1955 or 1956 blue Buick momentarily blocking the exit, with an older heavyset man giving a rifle out of a trunk to a younger slender man who walked off with it. All the women said they were viewing both men only from the back and did not get a look at their faces. There was not much in the way of specific description of either of the men beyond younger and slim, and older and heavyset, without seeing a face, though there was a good description of the car, which the FBI tried to run down (more on that below). Ruby had nothing to do with this. Ruby comes into it only if one fixes on thinking Oswald was the younger man, then asking who the other might be, and speculating maybe unidentified older "heavyset man" might be Ruby who was a little heavyset and older. None of the three women gave any claim to have identified Ruby or reason to suppose the older man was Ruby other than secondarily if one conjectures from the Oswald starting point. Ruby is a red herring here. But Oswald is not a red herring. The original hearsay was specific on details of how the women knew Oswald (at a lunch place, spoke Spanish with him), and that hearsay corresponds exactly to a time when Oswald was taking curtain materials for seamstress work needed to the location of his workplace, and these women were seamstresses who the hearsay said knew Oswald. Such that, the story underneath this story is that when those women after the assassination were scared, it may have been not only from seeing Oswald on television, but because one or more had actually met and knew him. And could have recognized him even from the back without seeing a face. At the time of recognition it would not mean much--Frances Hernandez said her first thought was these were simply hunters in hunting season like one of her own male coworkers who had just gone hunting, nothing unusual. But after the assassination, as might be imagined, if one of them had recognized Oswald or thought she did, it would be a devastating recent memory. Was pre-assassination knowledge of Oswald on the part of one or more of these women not disclosed in the reporting? The reason for suspecting it was both true and that the FBI knew it was true that one or more of the McKeel women knew Oswald pre-assassination is because that was the issue, and the question "did you know Oswald?" is so routine of a question the FBI asked other witnesses. But the FBI agent, Pinkston, who did the first Nov 26 interviews of two of the three women, Frances Hernandez and Josephine Salinas (the third, Henrietta Vargas, was not interviewed on Nov 26), and the FBI agent responsible for the interviews and reporting of the McKeel women on Dec 31 and Jan 8, a William G. Brookhart of the Dallas FBI office (not Bookhout of the Oswald interrogations, different person), never reported whether those women knew Oswald pre-assassination. When an obvious question is not asked, or if it was asked there is no report of it asked or report of its answer, sometimes that is a signal of something going on. Obviously Pinkston and/or Brookhart would have asked! Its not that neither one of them asked. Its that they didn't report that they asked, and didn't report the answer. That is what happened. Pinkston could have told Brookhart not to ask, but Pinkston would have asked, and if Brookhart was not instructed not to do so, Brookhart would have asked too. First interviews of Nov 26, 1963 (by Pinkston) These two interviews of Frances Hernandez and Josephine Salinas have practically identical wording in the report attributed separately to each of these two witnesses. Either Pinkston mixed combined interviews from both into one report and duplicated it to each one, or saved time in his paperwork by composing one and (if the two women had not disagreed on anything) simply copied the same thing to the other. Either way, this identical sentence is attributed to both of those women: "She stated the younger man might have been Lee Harvey Oswald, but she is not able to say definitely it was Oswald". By having both women say that identically, if one was the true source it would be difficult to know which one it was. Note in this original report the focus and underlying question is whether there had been an Oswald sighting. That was the issue. There are three minor differences in wordings reflecting in all cases editing for reading better, not alteration of meaning. Also, the interview of Frances Hernandez occurred in Dallas on Nov 26 whereas the one of Josephine Salinas occurred the same day in Farmers Branch, Texas. Farmers Branch is where Josephine Salinas lived--her address is given in a later interview report and it is 13740 Birchlawn Drive, Farmers Branch, Texas. Identification of one of the McKeel women: Josephine Salinas One of the McKeel women can be identified: Josephine G Salinas aka Delfina G Salinas was born 11/2/26, was age 37 in Nov 1963, was married for a second time in 1966, unknown date of beginning and end of first marriage, and died Jan 12, 2013 at the age of 86. Here is a picture of her gravestone: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/236035623/josephine-salinas. A pre-Nov 22 knowledge of Oswald? It is not clear which of the two, Frances Hernandez or Josephine Salinas, Pinkston interviewed first or second but he dictated both interviews later that same day and the one of Frances Hernandez was dictated first and the one of Josephine Salinas second. Here is Pinkston's report for Frances Hernandez in regular type, with the report for Josephine Salinas the same except for the variants in parentheses in italics: "...while on their way home about 5:10 p.m. on November 19, 1963, and after leaving the parking lot near the Texas School Book Depository, observed two men with an automobile, about a 1956 Buick, color light blue. The older of the two men was observed to hand a rifle (--> "handed a rifle") to the younger man of the two (delete "of the two"), who then walked from the Buick toward a white car which was a compact (--> "a compact white car"), but she did not know the make of it. She stated the younger man might have been Lee Harvey Oswald, but she is not able to say definitely that it was Oswald. She stated she has no other information." Josephine Salinas must have been the one of the three who lived the farthest away which means she will have been the driver of the three women, giving the other two rides home from work in some car-pool arrangement. A possible interpretation: one or both of these women were of interest to the FBI because they may have said they knew Oswald, and at least one of the two may have said she thought she may have recognized Oswald in the parking lot, based on knowing who he was pre-assassination. And from descriptions of fear described specifically to Frances Hernandez and not the other two, it may be that Frances was the one who thought the young man was Oswald (even if both Frances and Josephine may have known Oswald). Notice what is not said in the reports: why Frances Hernandez (or cc Josephine Salinas) thought the man might have been Oswald. In other FBI reports it often is said explicitly, such-and-such witness saw pictures of Oswald in the newspaper or on TV and from that recognized the man they remembered seeing on some xyz earlier occasion ... but that is not said here. Taking these reports at face value, there is no sign that Pinkston had any curiosity in asking what was one of these women's grounds for thinking the man was Oswald. And yet it is certain Pinkston would have been curious. Pinkston simply is not reporting everything. Why would the key detail, of the basis for Frances Hernandez thinking the man might have been Oswald, be left out? Perhaps the original hearsay version tells why: because she had pre-Nov 22 knowledge of Oswald (the lunch place, the conversing in Spanish). But still, why prefer to not mention that in FBI reporting for the record? It is difficult to come up with an explanation or reason better than an Oswald curtains connection. What if the FBI via Pinkston did catch a whiff that Oswald was known to one or more of those women at McKeel and--just possibly--that some of Oswald's curtain activity that week had included an inquiry at McKeel Sportswear, in the Dal-Tex building across the street from the TSBD, seeking a seamstress who could turn fabric and curtain rods into curtains that Oswald needed? These interviews occurred after the FBI and media all over America had already decided that Oswald's package from Irving the morning of Nov 22, of the exact size of curtain rods and which he told Buell Frazier was curtain rods, was really Oswald bringing in the Mannlicher-Carcano found on the 6th floor. The curtain rods, in the FBI and later Warren Commission interpretation, never happened. Oswald made that all up. That was the accepted narrative. Could the FBI be relied upon to disclose information that potentially impeached that narrative? (I do not assume the answer is necessarily no, but I also do not assume the answer is necessarily yes.) Why did the FBI never ask the McKeel women, who were saying they were scared because they thought it might have been Oswald receiving that rifle in the parking lot, whether any of those women had previously seen or known Oswald from the building across the street? Just to check off that question asked routinely of so many other witnesses? Why not? Maybe there was a reason. Second interviews of Dec 31, 1963 (by Brookhart) This time all three McKeel women of the parking lot sighting were interviewed. Frances Hernandez is said to have been "re-interviewed" (note word). The other two (including Pinkston's report of Salinas) are said to have been "interviewed" (note word). And Pinkston is no longer interviewing on this case any more; Brookhart is from here on out. In these interviews, no longer is there any attention called to a claim of recognition of Oswald as the original issue. At face reading it now is worded to sound as if it was the gun itself that aroused suspicion (irrespective of any claimed identification sighting). On face reading both Oswald and Ruby are raised as equally possible identities which in both cases had no basis, neither Oswald nor Ruby being any more at issue than the other. In the individual reports, the third woman, Henrietta Vargas, is interviewed for a first time. Vargas explicitly denies she saw the faces of either man ("did not see the face of the young man ... did not see the face of the older man ... did not see their faces"). Josephine Salinas denies she saw the face of the older man but does not deny that in the case of the younger man ("she did not see the face of the older man ... the younger man who was of slender build walked away from the Buick carrying the rifle, but she did not see where he went, or whether he got into an automobile"). Frances Hernandez, like Salinas, denied seeing the front of the older man, but does not deny having seen the face of the younger man. Frances Hernandez: "[S]he only saw the back of the older man's head and can only say the younger man was rather slim. She cannot describe either of these two men as being identical to Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby; and thought of the above incident only after the President was assassinated. She said she and her friends were frightened and reluctant to become involved and were very excited and confused for some time, but now that she has had time to think about this, she is certain of the above facts." Frances Hernandez sounds like a good candidate for having been the first and perhaps only one of the women, after the assassination, to claim a possible Oswald identification for the younger man the three women had seen with the rifle, and Frances told the others. Neither Salinas nor Vargas are said in their reports to have been frightened; Hernandez is the one who says she was "frightened". The wording in Frances Hernandez's report makes it sound like Hernandez is backtracking on something though the report does not make clear what. Maybe it was an earlier opinion expressed that she thought the young man might have been Oswald? Frances Hernandez may be the originator of the belief that she held and shared with her two coworkers that they had seen something truly scary, not just a random gun and random men, but Oswald whom they knew with a rifle. Frances Hernandez, the specific one of the three who speaks of fright. Frances Hernandez, the one of the three with language implying she is almost retracting something from before, without the reader of the reports being clear what. Frances Hernandez, who must have been asked but whose answer is not disclosed, whether she knew Oswald before the assassination. Date of the incident A minor point, which the FBI did not resolve but which we can, for whatever it is worth, is establishing the date of this incident with 100 percent certainty as Tue Nov 19, not any other day. In the earliest Nov 26 reports, the identically-worded reports of Hernandez and Salinas, both have those two women each saying the date was Tue Nov 19. However by the time of the Dec 31 reports some of the witnesses' memory seem to degrade slightly on the matter of the date. In the Dec 31 reports: Hernandez: it was the day before JFK arrived [i.e. Thu Nov 21] and it was raining Vargas: cannot recall whether it was Tuesday or Thursday but does recall that it was raining Salinas: it was the day before JFK arrived, it was raining, she remembers thinking of JFK arriving the next day But it was not Thu Nov 21. It was as Hernandez's and Salinas's original interviews said, Tue Nov 19, and here is the proof: all three of the women remember that it was raining. Weather history for Dallas shows it was raining on Tuesday Nov 19, but did not rain at all on Wed Nov 20 or Thu Nov 21. And on Tue Nov 19 it was raining 3-5 pm, the time of the 5:10 pm parking lot sighting incident when all three women remembered it was raining when that happened. Even the FBI Gaemberling report on the JFK assassination of 1/22/64 was unaware of the correct secure date for the incident. That report refers in its title of the section dealing with this investigation as the incident having occurred "a day or so before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy". That is not accurate: it was Tue Nov 19. https://weatherspark.com/h/m/8813/1963/11/Historical-Weather-in-November-1963-in-Dallas-Texas-United-States#google_vignette https://weatherspark.com/h/d/8813/1963/11/19/Historical-Weather-on-Tuesday-November-19-1963-in-Dallas-Texas-United-States#Figures-PrecipitationProbability Was it Oswald? I would actually be inclined to say yes except it makes no sense to me that Oswald would be receiving a rifle out of a trunk of a car on Nov 19. He was no hunter. He isn't going to take it back to his room in Oak Cliff so he can look at it. If it was Oswald, then one would be looking at he is either doing some gunrunning of some kind, or else some new angle related to the assassination or a weapon into the TSBD building or something. I believe it is certain Oswald prepared his rifle on Nov 11 for a sale or dispossession of it, and I believe it likely (simply because it makes sense, even if lacking direct confirmation) that he did sell or dispose of that rifle prior to Nov 22. Therefore it makes no sense that Oswald would receive another rifle, or the same one back again, on Tue Nov 19. That it makes no sense says to me the young man seen by the women was not Oswald. Yet the plausibility that one or more of the McKeel women knew Oswald raises the question of would such a woman who knew Oswald, whoever she was, have been mistaken? If one takes out of the picture that any of those three women knew Oswald--but were solely reacting to the news of the assassination post-Nov 22--then that swings the weight heavily, overwhelmingly, toward assumption of simple mistaken identification, not further complicated. (And the notion that there was an identification of Oswald to begin with in that story is itself reconstruction and inference, not directly confirmed in the FBI reports though it is difficult to read those reports without suspecting that underlies those reports.) But in the present narrative at least one of the McKeel women, a seamstress, did know Oswald, and on that rainy afternoon of Tue Nov 19 from inside Josephine Salinas's car all three saw a young man ahead that reminded her of Oswald. Everyone has probably had the experience of being in a strange place and suddenly seeing some stranger from a certain angle and momentarily thinking that is someone we know, or a family member, maybe even a loved one who has died, before they turn and we get a better look and see it is a different person. That is what in this narrative may have happened here. She knew Oswald, and when she saw the young man receiving the rifle she did not have a good look at the man but mistakenly thought it was he (which at the time would not mean anything amiss because it would be assumed he was a hunter in hunting season). Then Oswald the next day inquires of her about curtains, tells her he will bring everything in to her on Friday. On Friday there is the assassination, Oswald's picture is in the news, and she thinks with horror back to the man she thought could have been Oswald on Tue Nov 19, and that rifle in his hands now took on a sinister light in her memory. In all likelihood it was not really Oswald, though she thought it might have been, and that does not argue that she did not know Oswald personally, only that she did not get a sufficiently good look to know it was someone else. January 8 interviews These interviews, also by FBI agent Brookhart, expanded to track down how the story of the three McKeel women spread to its endpoint in the hearsay that was initially reported to the FBI that started the investigation. An interview of Jan 8 with a Mrs. Conrad Galvin tells what happened. David Torres was the brother of a woman who worked at McKeel's and he knew the story from his sister. Whether that sister of David Torres was one of the three women of the parking lot incident, and if so which one, is not known. Mrs. Galvin's husband heard from David Torres the story of what these women at his sister's workplace had seen. A Mr. and Mrs. Velez were present in the Galvin home when David Torres told them of it. "Everyone there urged Torres to get in touch with these people to furnish this information to the FBI; however, they understood that the women were frightened and reluctant to discuss this matter." Mrs. Velez was interviewed on Jan 8. She confirmed she had heard the incident in the home of Mrs. Galvin. She claimed (either falsely or mistakenly) that she did not repeat the story to anyone. But she did; she told her mother who was visiting her, and her mother then returned home to her city and told a lady who told that lady's visiting niece who reported it to the FBI which launched the investigation back in Dallas. Mrs. Velez said she too with the others had urged Torres to attempt to influence the McKeel women to contact the FBI. "Mrs. Velez advised that she does not know Lee Harvey Oswald...", reads the report of her interview. But Mrs. Velez was never at issue with knowing Oswald. Yet this item gets reported for her, and not for the women for whom the question is relevant, the three McKeel women of the sighting. Possible identification of the heavy-set man In a Jan 8 interview Frances Hernandez and Josephine Salinas walked with Brookhart to the parking lot--this was at Frances Hernandez's initiative again hinting that maybe Frances Hernandez is the source of a claim to have recognized Oswald--and showed Brookhart exactly where the car and men were when they saw them. It turned out to be where there was a dirt service road along side of the Dallas Count Sheriff's office parking lot. In this interview Frances Hernandez updated her car description to the color being dark blue or dark green, not light blue as earlier. She says she was not sure it was a Buick as originally reported of her, says she got that from Josephine Salinas. Josephine Salinas now says although she still thinks it was a Buick it could also have been a Chevrolet. She also updates her color memory, from earlier light blue to now medium blue. The original Nov 26 car description of Hernandez and Salinas was a light blue 1956 Buick. On Dec 31, one Ed Cress, Chief Deputy of the Sheriff's office, said he didn't know, and he had checked with a few other employees and none of them knew either, of any of their people driving a 1955 or 1956 blue Buick. On Jan 8 a Captain Frank Marion Buckalew, Supervisor, Uniform Patrol, Dallas County Sheriffs Office of that building, told Brookhart he owned a 1956 blue and white Buick, 2 door hardtop. The only photo I could find of Buckalew is this in an obituary from 2014 when he died at the age of 96 (https://kirbysmithrogers.com/tribute/details/28/Francis-Buckalew/obituary.htm). The photo shows him as a younger man when he was in uniform, perhaps not far from the age he was in 1963, appearing to be somewhat heavyset. His age in 1963 would have been 45. But there is a slight problem with Buckalew being the man and the car those women saw: Buckalew denied it was him, said he did not own a rifle, said he always went home at 3:30, and always was in uniform when he went home. In the end there was no identification either of the men or the car by the FBI. But there never was any evidence it had anything to do with the assassination. Handing over a rifle out of a trunk during peak activity time in a parking lot (5:10 pm after a workday) might be argued not to be how a secret conveyance would be done. Most likely, that rifle handover happened at that time because one or both of those men had just got off work just like others leaving the parking lot. And in a parking lot, it seems most likely both men arrived by car and will leave by car, with the reason for stopping blocking an exit momentarily being the a visiting car was stopping near the location of the man who had another car parked somewhere. (And Oswald had no car.) Reasons for a possible romantic interest of Oswald in one of the women at McKeel's Sportswear who was going to fix up Oswald's curtains Oswald was having curtains fixed or made in the vicinity of his workplace at the TSBD, which would involve a need for a seamstress. the original report to the FBI of the parking-lot sighting included hearsay that some of the McKeel Sportswear sewing women knew Oswald he left his wedding ring behind in Irving he was secretive about the curtains with Marina when there was no reason why he should be, unless there was another woman involved he bought unexplained tickets to a popular music event in Dallas for that weekend, and those tickets were not for Marina and possibly may be added here: he uncharacteristically wore a button-down dress shirt to work on Friday, the light maroon shirt of CE 151. (See Pat Speer's chapter on that; the matter of which shirt Oswald wore the morning of Fri Nov 22 is contested but the argument of Pat Speer is correct on that, as shown also in my jackets article.) Coworker James Jarman, when asked what kind of shirt Oswald wore Fri Nov 22: "Ivy Leagues, I believe". Why was Oswald uncharacteristically wearing a dress shirt to work? Dressing up for an assassination? Or dressing up for a lady? Which makes better sense?

Thanks David.

Larry, given your and Bill Simpich's standing in this case and in the media, would it be possible for you to assemble say, three reputable forensic analysts capable of studying the original of the NBC Darnell film, and submit a concrete request to NBC? Not only is there some chance that requests of this nature might be honored, but the alternative of a refusal on the record could have legal value down the road and itself could enter into NBC's calculus on deciding how to answer. (As opposed to now: is there evidence NBC has ever refused a concrete legitimate request formally made? or only hearsay reports through intermediaries?) Also, there were reports in prior years--at the time, claimed to be legitimate and compelling ones--that there did exist secret tape recordings of Oswald's interrogations made by Fritz with I think the help of one of Fritz's assistants but known by no one else, and that several researchers knew of this and said that the source who knew of these tapes was highly credible. There was anticipation that those tapes would come forth soon. Obviously, such tapes would be extremely valuable to history. But then, not another word was heard of that. Neither the alleged credible source nor the the names of the alleged researchers who knew and vouched for the source and the truth of the claim, supposedly researcher names that would be familiar, are known to my knowledge. (If anyone here knows, please say.) I do not know if that is anything that can be included in your purview now or at some point going forward, but if you see opportunity please consider that, thanks. Also, though I know you already have this on your radar: the Marcello FBI tapes. Although most here seem to pooh-pooh the idea of a Marcello involvement, he was the mob boss in control of the city of the scene of the crime, had connections to Jack Ruby nobody disputes, and late in life confessed--his confession was what triggered the FBI to respond to that confession by announcing it was belatedly but finally closing the inactive but until then still-open investigation on the assassination of JFK, on the grounds that further investigation, such as of Marcello whose confession triggered this response, was unlikely to turn up anything new, since before the Marcello confession no evidence had been found against Marcello. (Yes, that was the reasoning given. Its like imagine police long have a suspect but could never pin anything on him. Finally, the suspect confesses and the police decide its time now to close the case because if there had been any evidence on the suspect who just confessed they would have known it before then. Therefore, when a suspect confesses is the logical time to decide that suspect is exonerated and end an investigation.) Finally, is there any mechanism by which Myers could be subpoenaed and asked to disclose the name of his anonymous source who told Myers that an unnamed police officer was a witness to the killing of officer Tippit, was at the scene of the crime and saw the killing happen, but never came forth? Myers reports the story, knows the identity of the source who told him, but has not disclosed. I realize Myers probably is honoring a promise on that or something, and reporters have some protections from being forced to disclose sources. But it is material evidence, it is not even clear the officer who may have been at the Tippit crime scene (if the story is true) or Myers' source are still alive at this point, and the interests of history could be argued to override such a promise. It is a shame Myers cannot find a way himself to bring this information to light (and the assumption that a promise to the source is the reason for Myers' non-disclosure is not to my knowledge even itself confirmed by Myers, who has never given a reason). I doubt there is a legal way to get at that information absent Myers' cooperation, just expressing frustration on that point to call to your attention. Thanks for your work on what you have been doing.

Pat I put a comment at the top of my earlier on the gaping head wound, saying are right that the Parkland witnesses' is the same as that of Z313 and of the autopsists.

Update 1/24/24: For reasons given in Pat Speer’s response, what I wrote in this post was not correct. The suggestion that the Parkland doctors' major gaping head wound was a different wound from the gaping head wound of Z313 and the autopsists’ and the subsequent panels' descriptions, was not right: reviewing the testimonies it is clear, as Pat responded, that the major gaping head wound described by the Parkland witnesses is the same wound, and cannot be interpreted as an exaggeration in perception of the distinct second head wound of the autopsists situated by the autopsists near the EOP in the lower back of the head. It is clear the Parkland witnesses were not referring to that one when they referred to the actual one and only major gaping wound higher up in the head. gd

Jim Hargrove, this is a serious question not intended to be flippant: in this theory of two Oswalds in the same Marines unit sharing a single Marines file, did these two Oswalds share the same Social Security number and the same bunk? If they had different ID numbers and were in different bunks, wouldn’t some of the other Marines have noticed, and wouldn’t there have been separate military files as two persons? I don’t know the explanation of the Taiwan vs non-Taiwan paperwork discrepancy, but surely there is some simpler resolution than two Oswalds with identical first and middle names in the same Marines unit? If there was a secret govt plan to have two lookalikes with identical names (but who were genetically unrelated) have separate lifetime histories covertly without it being common open knowledge that there were these Siamese Twin Oswalds (so to speak), would it make sense to put them in the same military unit at the same time, if the idea was to keep it secret?

Jack R. Swike, The Missing Chapter: Lee Harvey Oswald in the Far East 2008), loaded to the gills with primary documents, is quite emphatic that Oswald did not go to Taiwan. See chapter 14, "Taiwan", with documents shown there, pp. 192-209.

You're right Tony, corrected, thanks.

The need to revisit how and when the rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD got there, in light of accumulating reason to conclude Oswald did not bring a rifle from Irving to the TSBD on Friday morning, Nov 22, 1963. The timeline of Oswald in three days of Nov 20-22, 1963, make excellent sense interpreted as an immediate response to an urgent priority situation--the curtain rod with curtains in his room had collapsed and and crashed to the floor and it was not simply out of the goodness of Oswald's heart that he wished to remedy or repair that, it may have been an issue of discomfort being in that room without closed curtains, something he wanted fixed now. Wed eve Nov 20, it is independently known that Oswald was at a nearby laundromat until closing time, Sleight's Speed Wash, 1101 N. Beckley, witnessed reading magazines there, not getting back to his room in the rooming house that night until after midnight (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=570). Oswald probably was doing laundry, no reason to doubt that, but all night? Well maybe, it would be nice if we knew what needed washing, unknown. Or was he in addition to doing some laundry just hanging out there, caught up in reading something in a magazine, preferring to be there as long as he could until he was told it was closing and he had to go? Could there also be a factor that he did not enjoy being in his room at night without the curtains closed? The curtain rod crashing issue was so urgent Oswald for the first time did not appear at work at the TSBD on time at 8:00 am on Thu Nov 21. It does not matter that his timesheet at TSBD shows him working the full day that day. (I believe his time sheet also showed he worked a full 8 hours on Fri Nov 22 which also was incorrect.) There was no time-clock and unless someone proactively brought to attention of the TSBD time-records man that someone was missing, their normal times would be written in. And a factor working in Oswald's favor is that he was otherwise extremely reliable and punctual such that that kind of behavior and track record develops trust. I have heard baseball stories of umpires becoming so familiar with a certain major league hitter who never swung at a pitch thrown that was a "ball" that they would call a close one influenced by whether that hitter had swung or not, because of that track record. The point being, Oswald could well have been late on Thu Nov 21 and not noticed, or even if Shelley or someone remembered they did notice wondering where he was they would assume he was there somewhere because he always was. And the evidence Oswald did not go to work on time on Thu Nov 21 is substantial. a witness report from his waitress for breakfast at the Dobbs House Restaurant credible report that Oswald bought tickets to the Dick Clark Show at the Top Ten Record store on Jefferson in Oak Cliff on what must have been the morning of Thu Nov 21 (since the morning of Fri Nov 22 of the later memory/hearsay report is not possible as to the time, and human errors in memory of which calendar days are common in otherwise truthful witness accounts). a driver reported picking up Oswald hitchhiking on the Thornton Expressway from the N. Beckley entrance, driving him to Houston Street across from the TSBD in Dealey Plaza, letting him off carrying a 3-4 foot package that the driver was reported to have said Oswald said was "window shades". There certainly was a hitchhiker because Ralph Yates, the driver, told a coworker, Dempsey Jones, of picking up that hitchhiker before the assassination, as confirmed by that coworker. Ralph Yates identified the hitchhiker unequivocally as Oswald on the basis of photos. Although Yates himself was uncertain from his memory whether the hitchhiker was Wed Nov 20 or Thu Nov 21, in either case at ca. 10:30 AM pickup, the FBI found company records establishing that it was certainly Thursday Nov 21, not Wednesday, as to the date. And the timing and points of pickup and dropoff match Oswald. The "fantastic" elements in Yates' story of what was discussed by the hitchhiker are explicable in terms of Yates' disturbed mental condition and Yates' explicit clarifications retracting most of those elements in a following FBI interview, but the hitchhiker's existence itself and his identity as Oswald stands, without anything incriminating Oswald in the assassination in Oswald's actual conversation with driver Yates properly understood. Furthermore, Yates submitted voluntarily to a polygraph which found no intentional deception (though the polygraph administrator claimed the results showing no lying were useless as opposed to establishing truthfulness). From the FBI report of Dempsey Jones, Yates' coworker, whom Yates told about his hitchhiker before the assassination: "Jones said Yates told him he had picked up a boy in Oak Cliff and took this boy to Houston and Elm in Dallas. Yates said this boy had a package not described at that time, but after the death of the President, Yates described the package as a 'long package' and then on telling the facts over again, Yates said this man told him it was some window shades he was carrying for the company he (the man) had made." (FBI, Nov 27, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=425) Then upon getting to and starting work at the TSBD late that morning, estimate somewhere in the 10:30 am to 11:00 am range the morning of Thu Nov 21, Oswald first opportunity finds Buell Frazier and lines up a ride to Irving that evening after work. (Buell Frazier said Oswald asked him that in the morning of that day.) Oswald goes to Irving Thursday night, returns Fri morning Nov 22 to work at TSBD with Buell Frazier, with curtain rods, and intent to deliver both the fabric material and the curtain rods to the seamstress across the street in the Dal-Tex building that afternoon. If Oswald's actions to get new curtains began immediately following the time of crashing of the curtain rod in his room to the floor, the following line up to show Oswald was minimizing time spent in his room in evenings until he could get new curtains installed: Wednesday night, Nov 20--Oswald spends the entire evening until midnight in a laundromat reading before forced to go home when it closed. Thursday night, Nov 21--Oswald is not in his room at N. Beckley at all, is in Irving Friday night, Nov 22--if the assassination had not interrupted things, there is every reason to suppose Oswald would have anticipated having his new curtains ready by the end of that day or perhaps a half-hour or hour later, ca. 5-6 pm, ready to be taken back with him by bus to Oak Cliff and he would be in his room with closed curtains again as preferred. And although the major objection to this scenario is the overwhelming juggernaut of belief that Oswald carried a rifle in from Irving the morning of Fri Nov 22, and not curtain rods, that belief becomes very equivocal in light of research I separately and newly showed in 2023 which establishes that Lee and Marina removed the rifle from the Ruth Paine garage on Mon Nov 11--eleven days before the assassination--and took it to where Lee repaired a damaged scope base installation in order to prepare that rifle for disposition. That study establishes that the rifle was in Ruth Paine's garage up to Mon Nov 11, but that there is no evidence that rifle was in Ruth Paine's garage, or in Oswald's possession, after Mon Nov 11 (https://www.scrollery.com/?page_id=1581). Therefore, since there is evidence Oswald did take curtain rods from Irving with him to the location of his workplace on the morning of Fri Nov 22 for reasons discussed, and since there is no evidence of any direct kind that Oswald brought a rifle in from Irving on the morning of Fri Nov 22--the issue of when and how the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD got there, and whether Oswald was involved in putting it there, must be revisited. That is the modest conclusion here.

Tom G. I continue to think about this and how it might have worked. If Oswald had been quoted a low price at the time he checked to see if a seamstress at McKeel Sportswear could fix some curtains for him, and had left Irving on the morning of Nov 22 with $15.20 in his pocket, and the charge was not much, he could have afforded the charge out of the $7.20 remaining after allowing for paying the Monday room rent. Suppose he normally did cash transference and counting with Marina when he visited, and the usual thing Oswald did was take $15.00. Taking the same amount on Fri Nov 22 would be in keeping with the other indications that he was for some reason keeping the curtains work secret from Ruth and Marina. Ruth, because if Ruth knew it would get back to Marina. Marina, because of another woman in the picture. Lee does not keep it secret from Buell Wesley Frazier because Buell is not in contact with Ruth and Marina. Lee does not keep it secret from a ride picking him up hitchhiking. Marina is the object of the concealment. What Lee did not tell Marina: that he needed and was getting curtains made because the curtains at his room had crashed and fallen down, and he had no curtains that he was having the curtains he needed, made up by a seamstress at McKeel Sportswear near his workplace (rather than telling his need to Marina or Ruth) that he bought tickets to a Dick Clark show to happen on the upcoming weekend that he had arranged (via going out to Irving Thursday night unexpectedly) to be in Oak Cliff by himself alone, the weekend of Nov 23-24--and those Dick Clark tickets were not for Marina that he had taken off his wedding ring, hidden it, and was no longer wearing it that he took two of Ruth's curtain rods out of Ruth's garage where Marina was living without permission (that would have been objectionable to Marina if she had known). Especially since this occurs following turndowns by Marina to an unexpected request by Lee that Marina move in to an apartment with him that very weekend, perhaps interpreted by Lee as refusing to reunite as a family. Some men will provoke an argument or a breakup precipitously with one woman in order to be able to tell the new woman that the first woman is history, so that the second woman may be less reluctant to go out with him. Was something like that occurring here? If Oswald was anticipating a small charge--and you are right, if the woman at McKeel had the fabric and the curtain rods and the measurements needed (all provided to her by Oswald) it could be done in a few minutes with a sewing machine, say on her own after work that day right there using a McKeel sewing machine if no one was noticing, for the small amount of cash she would earn for the few minutes--not a high charge?--with luck she could have that done by 5:30 pm Fri and Lee would have curtains on his windows by Friday night? Or if she offered to do that for him for free, either way, Oswald might not leave Irving with more than his usual $15.00 in bills to avoid appearing unusual to Marina or needing to come up with some other explanation to Marina of why he was taking more money than normal. Simpler for Lee to just keep it at $15.00 and not raise any question in the first place? Put these two facts together: Lee tells Buell Wesley Frazier Marina is making him some new curtains Lee never told Marina anything about curtains Then these: The need of Oswald for curtains was not fictitious but real, from Nov 23 photos showing landlord and landlady Mr. and Mrs. Johnson hammering what had been a crashed super-long curtain rod on the floor of Oswald's room, back up with nails and hammer. A photo showing Mr. Johnson standing on the bed, hammer in hand, nailing that visible bent curtain rod back up. It was not up before that morning of Nov 23! And if Oswald was fixing it himself, which he was, without telling her or housekeeper Earlene what he was doing, no wonder Mrs. Johnson did not know why that bent curtain was inoperable, assumed mistakenly that either police or reporters had wrecked her curtain rod. But it doesn't matter what Mrs. Johnson's speculation was as to responsibility for the curtain rod being wrecked instead of nailed at the top of the windows. What matters is that that was the case, and the timing (that curtain rod had come down some time recently before the morning of Nov 23). the unrefuted (and uninvestigated) hearsay in an FBI report that some seamstresses at McKeel Sportswear in the Dal-Tex building knew Oswald, ate at the same lunch place with him and spoke Spanish with him. Oswald was separately reported bringing curtain materials to the location of his workplace, not any other destination, at the time that he needed curtain repair at his room on N. Beckley. Oswald's unusual spontaneous Thursday night trip to Irving, said to Buell Frazier to be for the purpose of picking up curtains Marina was making him (news to Marina). Oswald's unexplained buying of tickets to a Dick Clark rock n' roll show for the weekend of Nov 23-24, a kind of music and a way of spending money Lee never did before, a weekend when he was unusually in Oak Cliff on his own--and those tickets were not for Marina. Oswald's secrecy about all this to Marina. Oswald secretly taking off and no longer wearing his wedding ring when he went back in to Dallas to his workplace as of Fri morning Nov 22, unknown to Marina. Oswald taking 2 (or 3?) curtain rods out of Ruth's garage (leaving 2 remaining in the garage, none in use) without Ruth's knowledge or permission--this by Lee who was not otherwise a thief and over a minor item which in all likelihood Ruth would have freely given him if asked--Lee not saying a word to Marina or Ruth about it. What does that look like? If Marina had known these things, what would any woman think? Then juxtapose these two: no evidence Lee was told or knew that he was suspected of having brought a rifle to work that morning from Irving in the car with Buell Frazier Lee denied to Captain Fritz with the FBI et al looking on, when asked, that he had brought a package of curtain rods with him, and denied that he had told Buell Frazier that. Not just one, but both of those denials were untrue--he had brought curtain rods and he had told Buell Frazier that. He covers it up with Fritz under interrogation not because the curtain rods were untrue but because he has no idea it is an issue in his case and it involves a possible private relationship with another woman (also conceivably: if Oswald knew the seamstress was doing the job for him for cash for herself on work time off the books, if Oswald told the truth he could get that woman in trouble with her employer). When I was a kid I was riding with my father in a car and my father accidentally rear-ended a car in front of him, my father the driver at fault, the car in front innocent. No one was injured. Immediately the passenger door of the car in front opened and I and my father saw two young women run out of the car and disappear. After a few minutes the police arrived to make a report. We all overheard, I did too, I was standing there, the officer ask the driver of the car in front, a man, if there had been any passengers in the car with him at the time of the collision. The man said no, he had been alone in the car. My father did not contradict him, answered the questions the officer asked him, and the report was resolved otherwise routinely, with my father's insurance covering the claim for the damage. That man driving the car in front, innocent in the collision, lied to that officer about being alone in his car. He denied and did not tell of the two women passengers who were actually in the car with him, who would have been named and gone into that police report if he had answered truthfully. Something similar to Lee denying to Captain Fritz that he had taken curtain rods from Irving to his workplace the morning of Nov 22, I suspect. Another way to look at it than the interpretation of the Warren Commission and a majority of researchers.

More on the Dick Clark show possible date Still thinking ... frugal Oswald did not have a track record of giving gratuities. He did not offer Buell Frazier gas money. Cab driver Whaley was miffed at Oswald's stingy tip of only a nickel on a $0.95 fare. There is no known gift he gave Ruth Paine for her hospitality in hosting him in his visits those weekends. Therefore the notion of the seamstress offering to prepare his curtains for free and he on his own giving two tickets as a gift for her and her husband does not quite work in terms of Oswald's track record. But suppose the seamstress offered to do it for free, which might happen if she hoped to get to know him better. In this narrative what might she have seen in him to want to get to know him better? Was it that he spoke Spanish, which could prompt asking him how many languages he knew, and being impressed that he knew Russian and had been to Russia? Or had been to Japan? Or that he had just taken a trip in Mexico and told a couple sights he had seen? Could be anything. So that could account for Lee not bringing additional funds from Irving with him to pay for curtains which all of his other activity showed gathering curtain materials in the vicinity of Lee's TSBD workplace for a true curtains need of Lee. Then on the Dick Clark Show tickets, because it is not such a common thing (as in, no known example) for Oswald to on his own initiative buy gifts at financial cost to give as gratuities or thank-yous to others ... and yet Oswald did buy tickets to a popular music event happening that weekend not of the kind of music of Oswald's taste ... that returns to the possibility that Oswald did buy those tickets with the possibility of a date in mind with her. And the cost of the tickets came out of his money Thursday morning Nov 21 before he went to Irving Thursday evening. If on Friday afternoon he suggested she see the Dick Clark show with him on Saturday and perchance she said yes, he would probably be looking at some additional expense for coffee or ice cream afterward but that need not be much. The FBI reports list the three women of McKeel's of the parking lot sighting with all of their names being "Mrs." Of course whether those were exactly the same Spanish-speaking women from McKeel's that Oswald was said in the unrebutted hearsay to have known at the lunch place is not known. Maybe there was another seamstress of McKeel's at the lunch place who was not married and it was she who offered to fix Lee's curtains, and there was no husband issue of Lee inviting her to see the Dick Clark show. Or alternatively, conceivably one of the married women by name was separated and Lee knew that, whatever. There is the fact calling for explanation--Oswald bought either one or two tickets to a music event totally out of character for Oswald, for a weekend on which he was unusually on his own and not in Irving, the weekend following an intended Friday afternoon meeting with a Spanish-speaking seamstress at McKeel's who was going to fix up his curtains. (And on the one or two tickets, one ticket for Oswald to music not of his interest makes no sense; two tickets for a hoped-for date makes better sense.) The seamstress would know Lee was married, because up to that point Lee had worn his wedding ring. All the Spanish-speaking women who knew Lee at the lunch place would have noticed the wedding ring. We might imagine Lee anticipating possible resistance from the seamstress of his interest over that issue: "Oh Lee, that's very sweet of you but you're married and I don't go out with married men." To which we might imagine Lee, anticipating that Friday afternoon encounter which was never to happen, not wearing his wedding ring, telling her that while it was true he was married, his wife had broken up with him (a certain spin of Lee's on Marina's refusing to reunite with him in getting the apartment). And hoping, just hoping, that she might reconsider, what harm in going to see Dick Clark (whose music she loved) ... And who knows. But it was not to be. An assassination of a president got in the way of that narrative.

Gerry Down yes, on your good point of no ejected shell hull expected from a single shot fired from a bolt-action rifle. The absence of a hull actually could be an additional weak argument in agreement with Oswald’s rifle being the weapon that fired, in that hull-ejecting firearms might be excluded. I suggested Surrey, who I am convinced unappreciated evidence shows was at the location from which the shot was fired when it was fired (or very close by at most), could have picked it up. Against that is the common sense of the shooter (and accomplices if any) leaving instantaneously rather than lingering at the location, on the other hand if Surrey was there and took a split second to retrieve it from the ground before leaving, maybe? … but probably simpler there just was no ejected hull.

Well there’s $8.00 weekly room rent at Beckley due Monday Nov 25, and he has to buy lunch meat and milk for his room, sandwiches and cokes at work … unless we knew the dates he was paid in cash from TSBD, biweekly in cash (at @1.25hr that would be ca $100 cash minus taxes) … but I have searched on MFF and cannot find the pay dates (can you?). If he knew the charge was going to be nominal like $1.00 or so, maybe, but it would seem he would bring more cash as a cushion if he anticipated paying for anything unusual in the next week or so. One thing to consider is it’s not like us if we run short just go to the cash machine or pull out a credit card. Oswald had no bank account, it was all cash, and their savings (all cash) were in Marina’s room in Irving. If Oswald were to run out of cash he would be stuck until his next TSBD biweekly pay or trip to Irving whichever came first.

Update A problem: when Oswald was arrested he only had $13.87 in his pocket, and no money found in his room at N. Beckley. About $180 in cash was with Marina in her room in Irving. That was their bank. As I have previously reconstructed it Oswald would take all the cash from his biweekly cash payments at TSBD (paid in cash: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=724) to Marina each weekend, leave all but $15.00 of it with her, and return with $15.00 for the days in between until his next visit, which would be $8.00 paid out for his weekly room rent payable on Mondays, and leaving $7.00 for food until he returned the next weekend. The $13.87 found on Oswald's person at the time of his arrest fits this reconstruction (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29963-finish-the-sentence-re-tippit/page/5/). Would Lee have money to pay the seamstresses at McKeel Sportswear to fix his curtains, if that was his intent? So ... modify that narrative? Possible modified narrative: the Dick Clark tickets as gratuity not for a date Assume Lee knows the women at the lunch place. He knows them well enough to ask about his curtains need. Suppose he broke or rather bent into unusability the super-long curtain rod in his room on Tuesday night. On Wednesday he asks the women of McKeel if they could fix up some new individual window curtains for him and asked how much it would cost. Imagine one of the women says they don't really do that work at McKeel Sportswear but she will do it for him for free at home on her own sewing machine or else at McKeel's after hours. The seamstress explains what she needs from Lee: fabric, curtain rods, and measurements. She tells him she will be glad to do that for him, and he can pick it up from her in the Dal-Tex building after she has it completed and ready for him. Oswald is touched by that kindness. This is the solution to his curtains problem. The Dick Clark Show tickets that he buys early the next morning, Thu Nov 21, then, might not be for a date of Oswald with her. Instead it might be his payment or gesture of appreciation to her for her kindness in fixing his curtains for free. Somehow Oswald, who has no interest in Dick Clark music himself, may have learned from her, something that she said, that she likes Dick Clark. Oswald goes to the Top Ten Records Thu Nov 21, buys first one ticket for her. (Every penny matters to Lee.) Then (per the Jefferson Street retail store hearsay) he was said to have returned back to the store a second time and bought a second ticket. The buying the second ticket could be so she could go with her husband or with a girlfriend, or was it Oswald hoping to attend with her? The Dick Clark show, early 1960's rock n' roll and popular, was not Oswald's known taste in music, which was Russian opera and classical. The wedding ring again If Oswald met the Spanish-speaking women of McKeel's in a lunch place on previous occasions they would have noticed his wedding ring. Therefore, Oswald coming in to work to the TSBD on Fri Nov 22 without wearing a wedding ring does not seem it can have been for purpose of concealment to those woman that he was married. The wedding ring left in Marina's room in this narrative would be not because he was going to kill Kennedy or was saying goodby because he was leaving Dallas, but maybe because Lee had decided he no longer wanted to be seen publicly as married. We only have Marina's version of her turndown of Oswald Thu night Nov 21 to what she described as his three times earnest appeals that they find an apartment together that weekend. Marina's objection, "no, maybe after the holidays!" ... could be Marina language for "no", she was happy in Irving for the time being with another woman for support with a small child and baby and had no intention of moving into an apartment with Lee into a situation of isolation and poverty ... even though that was the supposed game-plan and supposed to be the denouement of their temporary living apart for financial reasons. Imagine that is how Lee understand that from Marina. It was not an explosive argument. Ruth told of seeing nothing really unusual that evening, just an ordinary visit of Lee to see Marina and his kids, like always. Ruth did tell of a visit of Lee into the garage which was interpreted by the Warren Commission as Lee getting the rifle. But Lee had already disposed of the rifle Nov 11 and by Nov 21 there was no rifle any longer in the garage. That was Lee getting the curtain rods. But back to Lee and Marina. Maybe this time was some internal tipping point. He decided he was not going to wear the wedding ring. Some men just decide to quit wearing a wedding ring at some point. In this narrative the assassination that day indeed was coincidence with Oswald leaving his wedding ring in Irving. But his intended visit to the Spanish-speaking woman at McKeel Sportswear who had offered to help him, with his gathered curtain supplies and the curtain rods, Fri afternoon Nov 22, and his no longer wearing his wedding ring, may not have been coincidence.

A narrative Oswald has a need for new curtains Let us suppose Oswald by accident busted the long curtain rod over the three windows in his tiny room on N. Beckley. We don't need to suppose this since there are photos of it, though owner Mrs. Johnson was uncertain how it happened, alternatively blaming news people or police on Fri Nov 22 for causing it. Mrs. Johnson was photographed by photographer Gene Daniels on Nov 23 hammering the long curtain rod back in. Let us assume what happened was Lee realized he had broken it, and Lee is the one who took it down. Let us imagine Lee has no plans to leave right away and would like that fixed for practical reasons--privacy because his north-facing windows look right into the side of another house and its windows--and because he wants to fix what he broke. Rather than tell the Johnsons he decides to fix it himself. The fix: instead of one super-long curtain rod and one super-wide set of curtains covering all three windows, he will install instead individual curtains and curtain rods on those windows. He will do the fix himself rather than report to the Johnsons that he damaged their property without having solved it first. We know curtains and curtain rods were on Lee's mind, in addition to the concrete evidence of the photos of Nov 23, 1963 showing the long curtain rod in his room had been busted. We know that for two reasons: what he told Ralph Yates when he hitchhiked a ride from him Thu morning Nov 21; and what he told Buell Wesley Frazier when he got his ride from him on Thu Nov 21. Oswald as the Yates hitchhiker who said he was carrying curtains Ralph Yates was a refrigeration mechanic who picked up a hitchhiker at the N. Beckley entrance to the R.L. Thornton Expressway--about a mile north of Oswald's rooming house--at about 10:30 am on the morning of Thu Nov 21. The case for the Yates hitchhiker being Oswald is: first, Yates positively identified Oswald as his hitchhiker from seeing Oswald on TV. Second, the hitchhiker was dropped off by Yates in Dealey Plaza on Houston just next to Oswald's workplace the TSBD, and Yates last saw the man walk with his package crossing Elm Street in the direction of the TSBD, Oswald's workplace. And third, the timing of when Yates picked him up at the N. Beckley entrance of the R.L. Thornton Expressway: at about 10:30 am Thu Nov 21. That was about 30 minutes after Oswald was independently witnessed at the Dobbs House Restaurant on N. Beckley near the rooming house eating breakfast at about 10:00 am according to the waitress who served him. Never mind that Oswald is supposed to be at work at the TSBD at those hours. The evidence just cited says he wasn't that particular morning. Yates said Oswald was carrying a package, estimated by Yates to be about 3-4 feet long. Yates said Oswald told him the package had curtains in it. That's what he says Oswald told him. Forget the part about Oswald asking about Jack Ruby on that ride. Yates later told the FBI that did not happen, correcting his earlier FBI report. Forget the part about Oswald showing Yates a backyard photo and asking Yates if someone could shoot the president like that. Yates also told the FBI that didn't happen that way, correcting that part of his report. Forget the part about Oswald doing anything incriminating in that ride with Yates, no matter how spooked Yates was and how tragic the outcome was on Yates in the aftermath of the assassination. During that ride with Oswald, there was a discussion of the president's arrival, and discussion of the possibility that he could be shot from a window, probably some mention of the Adlai Stevenson reception several weeks earlier. Everybody in Dallas was talking and wondering about that, that was not an unusual conversation. Yates took part in that conversation and Yates was no assassin. It only became unusual retrospectively after the assassination when Oswald was believed to have done it. Similar conversations must have occurred a thousand times among ordinary people in Dallas the same morning of that nature. Yates remembers Oswald asking if he knew if there had been any last-minute change of route of the parade. Again, that is the most innocent of question and only takes on sinister meaning in retrospect post-assassination. Imagine for purposes of this narrative that Oswald actually is innocent, that the Yates' hitchhiker really was Oswald; and there was nothing sinister about what happened on that ride beyond Oswald wanting to get himself and a package of fabric for curtains from Point A to Point B at a certain time of day and hitchhiking as his means of doing so. After the assassination, everyone has considered that either Yates imagined it was Oswald with a package, or if it was a package it either was the rifle or intended to look like it was. Imagine that is all wrong. Imagine the package had in it what Oswald told Yates it did: curtains. Going to Irving for curtain rods That morning, Thu Nov 21, Oswald--after his arrival in the vicinity of the TSBD with a package of curtains--entered the TSBD late and got to work. Almost immediately Lee asked Buell Frazier if he could catch a ride to Irving at the end of that day. Frazier said sure, asked why. Oswald said he wanted to get some curtain rods. Oswald goes to Irving Thu evening, unexpected because unannounced, has a rather ordinary evening playing with his daughter and the neighborhood kids, tries unsuccessfully to talk Marina into moving to an apartment that weekend, promises to buy her a washing machine, anything she needs--Marina declines, postpones, brushes him off, says maybe after the holidays. Lee goes to bed early, gets up, goes to work the next day. No drama, no secret prolonged goodby. Nothing unusual at all in behavior other than one detail: he leaves his wedding ring there. Everyone thinks that means they broke up, or he was anticipating shooting Kennedy, or anticipating leaving Dallas. This narrative will propose another possible interpretation of that with the wedding ring, none of the preceding, but wait till later for that. The next morning Lee in the car with Buell Frazier for the return trip to Dallas has a package with him of exact dimensions of curtain rods which Lee tells Buell is curtain rods, just as he told Buell the previous day he intended to get. There have been three possibilities argued for what Lee was really carrying in that package: the rifle, his lunch, or curtain rods. Let us imagine here that the correct answer is it was curtain rods, which has in its support the strong lifelong testimony of Buell Frazier on the length issue, ca. 27", too short to carry the rifle, but in exact agreement with the length of curtain rods in Ruth Paine's garage which measure 27". After parking near the TSBD, Buell sees Lee walk ahead of him with the package under his arm that looks in length and appearance like it is curtain rods, which Lee has told him is curtain rods. Buell sees Lee walk up the steps to the loading dock on the north side of TSBD, goes into a door. There is another door to enter the main floor area of the TSBD itself and Oswald is seen entering that "empty", no package. Therefore, assume Lee left his curtain rods unobtrusively on that loading dock somewhere out of the way for the moment. Where did Lee get the curtain rods? Intrigued by the chapter on the curtain rods issue on Pat Speer's website, I studied the curtain rods issue and determined to my satisfaction that Ruth and Michael Paine started out with four sets of curtain rods at their house, not two as Ruth thought. Michael remembered it was either two or four. The windows and rooms in the house make better sense with four. With four original, Lee takes two, leaving two which is what were found in Ruth's garage when she and Michael and the Secret Service and Warren Commission checked. The curtain rods in the garage were not being used, were accessible to Oswald. There is no other place he could have got them than there. Imagine he took two of them, assume two was either all he could find or all he needed. He knows they were there from having seen them before, but only now did he have a need for them. He takes them, doesn't tell either Ruth or Marina that detail. Now the reader may ask, why wouldn't he tell or ask Marina or Ruth? (The reason we think he didn't is because both of them said he didn't--that's the reason for that.) Hold on to that, because there will be proposed an unexpected explanation for that, just as for why he left the wedding ring. Imagine Lee is not taking those curtain rods in order to provide an excuse to Frazier. Imagine also that of course curtain rods was not his only reason for going to Irving--seeing Marina and his kids was the main reason, but imagine the curtain rods were not invented either, it was in the mix of tasks accomplished by going there. Imagine that the curtain rods from Irving taken to work at TSBD are related to his curtains in the 3-4' package taken to work at TSBD hitchhiking Thursday morning Nov 21, just before he asked Frazier for the ride to Irving to go get curtain rods. What was Lee up to with curtains and curtain rods in both cases taken to his place of work at the TSBD? We have now traced witness testimonies attesting that Lee in two separate conveyances brought what he said were curtains and curtain rods--two distinct curtains-related conveyances--to the location of the TSBD, on the same day, Thu Nov 21 and Thu-Fri Nov 21-22. There is no evidence either the fabric or the curtain rods actually ever were taken inside the TSBD by Lee. But they were there somewhere in the vicinity of the building. And why was Oswald doing all of this? Well, it is the obvious reason why: he was going to have curtains made for his room so he could have his windows properly covered for privacy, because he had busted the curtain that came with the room. Imagine it is not more complicated than that. But--the astute reader is asking--why does he go about it in this odd way--of bringing these items to his workplace, TSBD (even if not necessarily actually inside the building)? Why does he--apparently--not tell Marina? Why does he deny it to Captain Fritz under questioning, even though he had told Buell Frazier himself that was why? And why did he leave his wedding ring in Irving that morning before going into work at TSBD on Fri Nov 22? Imagine none of these things have anything to do with the assassination. Imagine all the assassination related theories and reasons and explanations for these things are all retrospective interpretation of these everyday mundane events in daily life, all mistaken explanations. Was Lee thinking of another woman? Imagine the one thing that has never been considered an an explanation for all of this: that a woman had flirted a little with Lee, and Lee was intrigued enough to notice her and be interested. Remember the incident of the Japanese woman Lee met at a party and was smitten with her, with Marina jealous, and de Mohrenschildt thinking good for Lee, serves Marina right for the way she treated him? That would be the pattern hypothesized here. Not sought out by Lee, but if a pretty woman showed some attention he would not mind that. Imagine that is what is going on as a subtext here. Nothing came of it. The assassination interrupted. Imagine it never was more than a woman smiling and catching his attention, Lee noticing she was pretty and maybe joking or smiling back, a lift in spirits in a dreary TSBD workday, he thinking about her... The possible woman who caught Lee's eye Imagine the woman was ... a seamstress, who sewed for her job, along with other young women fellow employees, working for a company in the Dal-Tex building across the street from the TSBD. Imagine she was Spanish-speaking, and she and fellow Spanish-speaking seamstresses had by accident noticed Lee by himself eating lunch in some location nearby. Lee knew a little Spanish, enough to say some words in Spanish to them. Imagine their pleasant surprise at that, maybe some giggling, some banter, maybe a couple more times at the same lunch place, who knows, casual conversation, he finds out where they work and vice versa. Maybe there is one in particular that has caught his eye. Now imagine Lee has an opportunity come up to do business with these women. He has this unplanned but real need for curtains. They are in the seamstress business. He will get his curtains from them, pay them to make them up for him. And he doesn't mind the interactions with the pretty women who are friendly to him as a fringe benefit. Lee and the women at McKeel Sportswear in the Dal-Tex building "Mrs. Evelyn Harris ... stated that on November 30, 1963, she had been visiting an aunt in Van, Texas, and while there met a woman who lives across the street from her aunt. She stated this woman is known as Lucy Lopez, a white woman who is married to a Mexican and had given the following story. "Mrs. Lopez had just come from Dallas where she had been babysitting for her daughter. She stated her daughter works at a sewing room across from the Texas School Book Depository Building. She stated her daughter and some of the other girls knew Lee Harvey Oswald who apparently spoke Spanish well and ate with them at a nearby restaurant." (https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/095/95674/images/img_95674_70_300.png) The FBI investigated this for other reasons and I have spent quite a bit of time sorting through this story, the results of which I report here. The part quoted about the Spanish-speaking knowing Oswald was not investigated. What was investigated was a report that three Spanish-speaking women who worked at the McKeel Sportswear company in the Dal-Tex building (misspelled "McKell" in the FBI reports), walking together out to their cars after work on the afternoon of Tue Nov 19, had encountered two cars and two men conveying a rifle. The woman speculated one of the men might have been Ruby and the other possibly Oswald, though they had not gotten a good look at the men enough to identify anyone. Since there were no identifications of either the persons or cars reported, and since it was just as hunting season had started and rifles were being borrowed or returned from being borrowed, and since sheriff's department deputies used that parking lot who could have been seen with firearms out of their cars, in the end nothing came of it. The original report quoted above reflects errors in hearsay which direct interviews by the FBI sorted out. Specifically, Lucy Lopez's daughter was a Mrs. Velez, a young woman. Mrs. Velez did not work at McKeel nor was she a seamstress. But she knew a man named Conrad Galvan who had picked up the Nov 19 parking lot story from a friend of his named David Torres, whose sister was one of the seamstresses at McKeel. (Incidentally, the date of the parking lot story is securely Tue Nov 19 as the women remembered, confirmed by the women remembering it was raining that day and Nov 19 it rained in Dallas. This detail on the security of the date ruled out that this incident was related to the Castor rifles in the TSBD which was the next day Wed Nov 20.) The three women at McKeel of the parking lot sighting were Mrs. Frances Hernandez, Mrs. Henrietta Vargas, and Mrs. Josephine Salinas. It is not clear whether David Torres' sister who worked at McKeel was one of those three or a fourth, and if she was one of those three, it is not known which one. But long story short, the FBI never investigated and did not establish that those three or four McKeel Sportswear women did not know Oswald. None of those women were asked or denied that directly in the FBI reports. The closest to a statement reported by the FBI that might read as suggesting the women did not know Oswald is a report that David Torres said of the "two or three girls of Spanish descent" who had seen the parking lot men with the rifle, "they do not know Lee Oswald to his knowledge". That is the only item given by the FBI on whether those women were acquainted with Oswald, and it is not a denial. It is certainly not a denial obtained by the FBI from any of the women themselves. In Torres' case it is simply a statement that he did not know. The FBI must have asked him that question, and that was his spontaneous answer. Yet though the FBI asked him, the FBI reports do not tell of having asked any of the women themselves that question, though they interviewed those women. And although other mistakes in the original hearsay story of Mrs. Evelyn Harris quoted above can be traced through understandable mechanisms for the mistakes, there is nothing in the actual truth of the stories brought out by the FBI that explain the origin of "some of the other girls knew Lee Harvey Oswald who apparently spoke Spanish well and ate with them at a nearby restaurant." That element of originally reported hearsay may well be some independent fragment of what was told and conveyed by hearsay that could well be truthful--there is no evidence contradicting it--even thought it was never followed up by the FBI (which was interested solely in the parking lot gun sighting report). On the strength of that unrebutted hearsay report, that "some of the other girls knew Lee Harvey Oswald who apparently spoke Spanish well and ate with them at a nearby restaurant", imagine that is true. Oswald and the Spanish-speaking women of the McKeel Sportswear company. Putting it together Imagine that Lee, hardworking family man that he was, living in Oak Cliff apart from his wife and children on weekdays, enjoyed some banter or low-level flirting in a lunch place with these fetching Spanish-speaking lasses working as seamstresses in the building across the street. Yes, they are married, and so is he, but he enjoys the attention. So, he takes the opportunity of his real emergency need for replacement curtains as an occasion to do business with them and have an excuse for more interaction with their smiles and laughter. Back to the curtains need, imagine that actually is urgent. Those windows look out directly into another house. Lee's room with the bed is next to those windows such that he is like a fishbowl. There are still louvres or slats of some kind in the photos of his room from that weekend, but perhaps they do not provide complete privacy with the superlarge single curtain set covering all three windows gone, in a pile maybe in a closet or on the floor out of the way in his room. Let us suppose Oswald may have broken the super-long curtain rod on say maybe Wednesday afternoon or night. Although Lee normally was punctual with work, he was not above simply showing up late if necessary. Maybe he hoped it wouldn't be noticed, or if it was he would just roll with whatever reprimand may come of it--but he did need curtains. He spends Wednesday night Nov 20 until after midnight in a nearby laundromat. And on Thursday morning he does not go to the TSBD as early as normal and on time, for the first time ever. A fellow roomer at the N. Beckley rooming house, Jack Cody, said that on "Wednesday or Thursday, the week Kennedy was assassinated", at about 7 am while he took a bus to work, Oswald came out of the rooming house and got on the same bus, "carrying a package, a newspaper-wrapped package. It was about six inches thick and a foot wide and about two foot long" (Russo, Live by the Sword, 268). Lets call that Thursday morning Nov 21 and trace through that morning. Oswald is leaving with a package. Imagine that package is related to his need for curtains. We don't know exactly what it was--maybe it is something that will give size or length measurements for customizing the curtains. There is an Oswald breakfast at the Dobbs House Restaurant near his rooming house in here somewhere this morning at which time Oswald ate a full breakfast but complained about how his eggs were cooked. Witnesses differ as to the time of day that he was there for that breakfast. Oswald's waitress, Mary Dowling, said the hour was around 10 am and she would probably know best, but a cook who remembered the same incident said it was early in agreement with Oswald's normal early time when he would come in for coffee before going to the TSBD. Actually the earlier time for Oswald there might make better sense. Let us imagine a main task of Oswald that morning was to purchase fabric for the curtains. We might imagine he may even have paid for a breakfast at the Dobbs House to "kill time" until stores would open. When the stores open he buys some fabric suitable for his curtains. He intends to ask the women at McKeel Sportswear to cut and sew and fix up curtains from that fabric to the right size for him, for which he will pay them. He buys the fabric, and that becomes the 3-4' package that Yates says Oswald carried with him when Yates picked him up hitchhiking that morning at around 10:30 am. Yates drove Oswald to where he requested, dropped Oswald off at Dealey Plaza right next to the TSBD, with that package. Oswald does not take the package to the women at McKeel yet. He stashes the package somewhere. (Where? unknown, but let us imagine he found somewhere where it could be safely stored overnight.) Then he gets to work at the TSBD with that late arrival, and at the end of that workday goes out to Irving, tries unsuccessfully to invite Marina to get an apartment with him that weekend. Unknown to Marina, he is returning to Dallas the next morning with a couple of curtain rods. Why did Lee leave his wedding ring? There has been much mystery surrounding why Lee left his wedding ring in Marina's room that morning, Nov 22, 1963. Some think it was a symbol of a marital breakup, or Lee's response to Marina's refusal to move into an apartment with him right then. But against that is: Ruth Paine said she saw no sign of distress or serious argument or a fight or sobbing or tears, none of that. Nor did Marina tell of any of that kind of drama happening. Some think he left the wedding ring because he was planning to assassinate JFK, or was going to leave Dallas. In this narrative we are imagining, Lee was not involved in assassinating JFK, even though unknown to him the rifle he with Marina's assistance had repaired and sold on Nov 11, unknown to him was on that 6th floor of the TSBD ready to be found and to frame him for the assassination being carried out by others. Here is a more mundane reason for leaving the wedding ring: because Lee was planning to take his fabric material and curtain rods to McKeel Sportswear that afternoon and he preferred not to be wearing a wedding ring then, when he drops in to see one of the women there. And that is why he did not tell Marina about the curtain rods or the curtains. He told Buell Frazier Marina was helping fix his curtains, but while the curtains and curtain rods part was true, the part about Marina assisting wasn't. That was just what he told Frazier. He did not tell Frazier he intended to have that work done by the seamstresses at McKeel Sportswear. Possibly one of those women at McKeel Sportswear had begun to be a little more to Lee than simply light flirting or banter. Some men take off their wedding rings when they do not want women to know they are married. Imagine that was the reason Lee took off his ring that morning. As for why he would leave it in Marina's room, that is logical on strictly practical safety grounds. Lee kept the family's money with Marina, all in cash, not with himself or in his room on N. Beckley (where it would be more vulnerable to loss or theft). About the only safe place to have his wedding ring if he was not wearing it was in Marina's room in Irving, just as with their money. However Lee hid it on Marina's dresser in a way in which it is not clear he wanted her to see it or to know he had left it. And is it necessarily obvious Marina would have noticed if it had not been for the assassination and police searches? Maybe the reason he hid it that way was for the most mundane reason of all--he was hoping she would not notice. Did Oswald have in mind a possible date the weekend of Nov 23-24, 1963? Suspend disbelief please until hearing this out. David Wood III, Assassination chronology: 7:30 AM (Nov. 22, 1963) J.W. "Dub" Stark, owner of the Top Ten Record Shop at 338 W. Jefferson Blvd. in Oak Cliff says that LHO is waiting at his store when Stark arrives at about this time. Stark says that LHO buys a ticket to the Dick Clark Show and leaves by bus. That date cannot be correct; at 7:30 am on Nov 22 Oswald was in Irving. Therefore imagine Dub Stark has the date wrong by one day and it really was the morning of Thu Nov 21, the morning Oswald does not go to work at the TSBD on time but takes care of other things that morning in Oak Cliff, before his late arrival to the TSBD that morning. From the information in this article by Bill Drenas the identification of Oswald as the one who bought that Dick Clark Show ticket looks sound (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/top10.htm). Not only did owner Dub Stark know Lee and Marina from having been in his store some times (when they both lived in Oak Cliff), according to his daughter Wanda, but a note from an Earl Golz interview in 1981 of Dub Stark had Dub telling this of his employee, Louis Cortinas, Stark had young employee 11/22/63 “curious story” that employee left store to go to theatre and said same guy earlier that morning purchased ticket to Dick Clark Show, cancelled after assassination. Louis Cortinas in interviews definitely confirmed he was at the Texas Theatre and witnessed Oswald being brought out under arrest. And then--get this!-- Oswald was reported to have returned to the Top Ten Record Store again that same morning to buy another ticket "On 12/3/63, Mr. John D. Whitten, Telephonically advised that he heard, Lee Harvey Oswald was in the Top Ten Record Shop on Jefferson, on the morning of 11/22/63. Oswald bought a ticket of some kind and left. Then some time later, Oswald returned to the record shop and wanted to buy another ticket ... Oswald then left the record shop for the second time. It is not known whether or not Oswald bought another ticket." (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/lho-top10.gif) Therefore Oswald bought at least one, and maybe two, tickets to the Dick Clark Show which was playing in Dallas that weekend. This was highly unlike Oswald to buy even a single ticket to an event like that. When did Oswald do something like that on any other occasion? And yet the identification, that that was Oswald, is credible. And returning to buy a second ticket to the same event? When he is going to be in Oak Cliff but alone that weekend? Oswald was not returning to Irving that weekend. He told Buell Frazier that. He is by himself that weekend, with two tickets to a music event? How else is this to be interpreted? It looks like Oswald was planning on maybe going out, or inviting someone to go out, on a date! Maybe there is some other reason why Oswald, who had never had a history of patronizing music events in Dallas before, alone in Oak Cliff, would buy two tickets to a Dick Clark Show music event to occur that weekend. But it is difficult to come up with some other explanation that makes sense. And it sure does make sense as a possible date. And the timing--if he bought that Thu morning Nov 21, that would be when he was preparing to have his curtains made at McKeel Sportswear, where he will see the women there, and perhaps one in particular. And just maybe, just maybe, he hoped to be able to say to her, he had these two tickets to the Dick Clark Show, and there was a sudden cancellation or something, and he doesn't want the ticket to go to waste, and, you know, would you maybe be interested in seeing that show with me? He buys two tickets to a Dick Clark show to occur on a weekend when he is not going to Irving to visit Marina. And he is doing a lot of activity around a curtain rod situation in his room at his rooming house that looks centered on the TSBD in location which looks a lot like it may be focused on the seamstresses at the McKeel Sportswear company in the Dal-Tex building, where there is an unrebutted hearsay FBI report that "some of the ... girls knew Lee Harvey Oswald who apparently spoke Spanish well and ate with them..." And he appears ready to go there that afternoon, Nov 22, in a curtain rods project that he has not told his wife, and on a day when by coincidence he decided extraordinarily not to wear his wedding ring, the day he may be asking a woman there to accompany him to a Dick Clark concert. There's a lot here that hangs together narratively. Why did Lee deny the curtain rods to Captain Fritz? Buell Frazier told the Dallas Police what Lee had said about going to Irving to pick up curtain rods, then returning the next morning with a package that looked like it contained curtain rods, which Lee said was carrying curtain rods. Nevertheless, almost no one (Pat Speer excepted) has believed Lee actually was carrying what the size of the package he carried indicated he was carrying and which he told Buell Frazier he was carrying. Let us imagine that Lee did tell Buell that because that is what it was that morning, curtain rods. He was getting those curtain rods suitable for individual window frames because he needed replacement window curtains in individual windows for his room on N. Beckley. And he was going to ask the women at McKeel Sportswear that afternoon, Friday afternoon, if they would do that work for him for pay. Imagine Lee with no idea going in to the TSBD that morning of Fri Nov 22 that there would be an assassination, that his (former, as of Nov 11) rifle was on the 6th floor, or that before the day was out he would be arrested and accused of having assassinated President Kennedy. Imagine he figured out after the shots that something was very wrong, and somehow realized (we don't know exactly how) that this was coming down on him, that he had been screwed, and he goes into high-tension evasive mode, calls for an emergency meeting at the Texas Theatre with someone, movements so as not to be followed, changing clothing appearance, picking up his revolver ... then he is arrested and in custody of the Dallas Police and questioned. At some point in the questioning Fritz asks him what he brought to work. He says it was his lunch. What about the curtain rods that Frazier said he had said? Oswald denies, denies he brought in curtain rods and denies he told Frazier it was curtain rods. But that was not true: he did tell Frazier that, and it was curtain rods. People have not been able to imagine why Lee would lie about that, that actually would exculpate him if it could be proven true. Here are some thoughts toward a possible answer to that within this narrative. He never intended his taking of two curtain rods from Ruth Paine to come out. When unexpectedly he found himself under arrest and in the glare of the spotlight, he tried to cover it up. That story, if he were to start telling it, could go to another woman, and perhaps that was why he was not telling that, so as not to bring her into it. Oswald otherwise seems to have sought--with Ruth Paine and Marina--not to draw innocent other people into trouble on his account. Maybe that is why he denied the curtain rods, the tip of an iceberg of a story that he regarded as personal. And yet it seems the seriousness of the charges Oswald was facing--of killing a president--should have overridden that, and surely would have in the hands of a good lawyer. But there is also this: did Oswald realize he was being accused of having brought a rifle to work that morning in his curtain rods package? For if no one informed him of that, the very thought might seem ludicrous, and not occur to him that that was what police could be suspecting. It matters whether it can be verified that he was told that that was one of the key points suspected against him. If he did not know that, then there might go any motive to embrace the curtain rods (truthful) story as his alibi. The world was being told a lot about Oswald over the news that we assume Oswald must have known too, but did he? Was Oswald ever informed a rifle had been found on the 6th floor, and that they were tracing it to him? Is it possible (as unbelievable as this sounds) that Oswald did not know he was being accused of some of these things, even though the whole world did, and not knowing, he would have no calculus in his mind or reasoning that he would have need of the curtain rods as an alibi? Is it possible Lee actually did suppose as he told a reporter, "they're taking me in because I was in Russia"? (or however his exact wording was) Not because he was being flippant, but because he honestly did not know and was guessing? He had been told he was accused of shooting a police officer but his reaction, according to witnesses to his interrogation, was that was ridiculous and he strenuously denied it--maybe he at first did think it could not be serious and was a mistake? Is it possible Lee was lying on some things early on because he did not realize there were charges on him that would stick? That he was blowing off his interrogators with in some cases false answers not because he was guilty but because he thought some things were none of their business and he would soon be released? It may not ever become fully clear why Lee dissembled concerning his taking of curtain rods from Irving that morning. But let us consider a different interpretation of these curtain rods, in which no matter what he may have told Fritz, it really was curtain rods and he had told Buell Frazier they were because they were. And it makes excellent sense that he would be carrying curtain rods in the light of this larger context of getting curtains fixed for his room, as outlined in this narrative. What became of the fabric and curtain rods that Oswald brought to Dealey Plaza? It is unlikely Oswald ever was able to take his fabric (the package he carried while hitchhiking with Yates on Nov 21) and curtain rods (that he brought from Irving Nov 22) to the McKeel Sportswear company or the women or woman of his possible acquaintance there. The assassination changed all that. Let us imagine Lee had the fabric of Nov 21 stored somewhere safe--it could be a paid storage locker, who knows, maybe not, but somewhere external to the TSBD building--and he never got back to it Nov 22. Someone would find it and if it was not traceable it would be disposed of and that would be the end of that. Imagine Lee set the 27" curtain rods bag upon his arrival to TSBD on Nov 22 somewhere out of the way on that loading dock outside the rear north entrance of the TSBD, thinking he would pick them up on his way to retrieve his fabric and go to McKeel Sportswear in the Dal-Tex building later that day. But with the assassination, he never picked up the curtain rods. Under this scenario the curtain rods never would have been inside the TSBD. However they would have been immediately outside in some crevice or cranny of the loading dock, and would have been found, the only variable being when, depending on how hidden they were. If they were not hidden were they tossed unthinkingly with other trash on Nov 22 before police learned late that night from Buell Frazier that curtain rods might be of interest? Did a Spanish-speaking woman at McKeel Sportswear ever know Oswald was interested in her? In all likelihood, no. We might imagine she lived out the rest of her days--conceivably could still be alive in her 80s today, maybe somewhere in Dallas now, who knows--never realizing that Lee Harvey Oswald, the man believed to have assassinated the president, had been so struck by her youthful vivaciousness and kindness to him so long ago, that he had, unknown to her, bought a Dick Clark Show ticket for her that weekend, hoping she might go with him there. And if the chemistry had been right, and she saw a heart that she liked, she might have listened as he at first hesitantly and haltingly, and then it might come pouring out, his telling her of his frustrating marriage, his hopes and dreams and sorrows ... And who knows.