Greg Doudna

On the interpretation of the dental records identified as "OSWALD, Lee H" dated 3-27-58 with the "failed 5-8-58" notation, I checked some dentistry sites to try to understand that record and here is what I offer, in addition to Ron Ecker's sister-in-law dentist comment:

(1) The teeth of the individual of the 1958 record are the same teeth of the person of the 1981 exhumation based on matches of both dental examination and both X-rays. The evidence that the 1958 teeth and the exhumation teeth are from the same individual is brought out in Norton et al. 1984. Specifically with particular reference to Table 3 at the end, at tooth #10 an identical distal amalgam restoration; at #15 an identical "occlusal metallic restoration" at which "restorations show identical radiographic morphology"; at #20 identical "distal occlusal amalgam restoration"; identical extracted #30 tooth, the only tooth extraction in both cases. Both individuals have the same "posterior bilateral crossbite". (This statistically is ca. 2-17% incidence, per sources cited in wikipedia article "crossbite"). And the "exam and bitewing radiographs" dated March 27, 1958 and at the exhumation are consistent as the same individual according to the examiners. 

(2) Therefore since the 1958 and the 1981 are the identical individual, and there are no non-natural front or any other unnatural teeth in the exhumation, it follows there was no non-natural tooth in the individual of the 1958 record, since it is the same teeth.

(3) This means the written notation "failed 5-8-58" cannot mean a failed prosthetic on the individual of the teeth of the 1958 record, notwithstanding that it is written in a space labeled "prosthesis required", because that possibility is excluded on the basis of evidence.

(4) Proposed interpretation of notation: The 1958 record consists of two sheets or pages. The first sheet with the charting has the typed name (Oswald, Lee H) and a typed date (3-27-58). This would be the date of the creation of the record, and the first sheet would entirely be the record of that initial visit, of 3-27-58, both of what was done, and what still needed to be done after that date. The charting at the left is before treatment on that date, and the charting on the right was filled in as treatment was done, both on 3-27-58 and on two later dates. The notation in the printed-form spaces and area below the charting was written there 3-27-58, except for the notation at the bottom right dated 5/14/58. 

(5) Taking into account Ron Ecker's dentist sister-in-law's comment on making use of a form while disregarding some of the labeling on the form--something with which I am familiar in writing receipts on standard forms in business--it seems to me dental work was done on 3-27-58. The first handwritten word at the top left I think means "yes, treatment was done" that day, 3-27-58. The second notation, which is written on a line printed on the form labeled "roentgenograms" which seems to be a radiation term in x-rays, I read as "13/O", referring to tooth #13 and a capital Roman letter "O" for "occlusal", that is there was a treatment done on tooth #13 occlusal (the biting surface of the molar). (Nothing to do with radiation which is the printing on the form at that space.) This is marked on the chart on the right--the chart labeled "dental treatment accomplished"--in the dark black spot marked in the space between teeth #12 and #13. ACTUALLY Norten et al. 1984 found this was an error in 1958 and that the "occlusal amalgam restoration" was on tooth #12, supported both by visual examination in 1981 and by x-rays of both, as explained in their report. The third notation to the right of the first two, now back up on the topmost line again where blank space again permitted, notes "failed 5-5-58". While Ron Ecker's sister-in-law dentist suggested that might mean a no-show appointment, I have a different suggestion: it means "the filling failed" (reported 5-5-58). Having had fillings fail myself in the past shortly after they were done, that seems to me to be a reasonable reading of meaning of the single word "failed" following the notation "tooth #13 occlusal" which is verified to have been an amalgam filling. Not too complicated: the "13/O" indicates the filling, and "failed" indicates it failed, that is, that filling failed. 

(6) The fourth handwritten notation on p. 1, at the lower right, is the most puzzling. It reads "E.T.C. Oper.-5/14/58". What does that mean? I don't know for sure, but my guess is "emergency treatment care" related to the report of the failure (of the filling at the tooth noted). That is, as reconstructed, on 3-27-58 an amalgam filling was put in at tooth #12 (actual location per 1981 forensic analysis), charted in 1958 between tooth #12 and #13, and handwritten notation 1958 (erroneously) #13. On 5-5-58 Oswald calls reporting the filling came out ("failed"). Oswald waits until nine days later when a dentist sees him and fixes it, as noted "Oper.-5/14/58" which is in agreement with a 5-14/58 notation on p. 2 of additional work done on that date.

(7) The second sheet, which based on the fine-print italicized words "over" at the bottom of the first one, and "continued" at the top of the second, may be a photocopy of the reverse side of a single sheet, has spaces for further appointments and record of work done after the opening of the record on the first page on 3-27/58. The busy dentists or staff did not bother with filling in the appointment times part, and only recorded treatment done. This page starts at the top line with handwritten "Exams", then the date (3-27/58), then the name of the dentist. It could seem there is a slight glitch in explanation here in that if the "13/O" filling was done on 3-27-58 it is not specifically noted in line 1 of p. 2 where only "Exams" is written. But presumably that was considered already documented on the top first sheet so no need to write it in again. In any case a filling at tooth #13 (actually #12 but noted as #13) is indicated to have been done at some point on or after 3-27-58 that had not been done before then, since comparison of the before-and-after two charts shows tooth #13 unmarked in the left chart, whereas on the right chart a filling is marked between #12 and #13--and that filling is nowhere else documented on p. 2, therefore it seems the notation concerning it on the first page was considered the documentation of it.

(8) The remaining entries would be, for 4-30-58, probably a followup appointment from 3-27-58, "#20 DO CEMO AM A.R.", would be tooth #20, distal occlusal amalgam filling. I am guessing the final "A.R." could stand for "anesthesia required". The last line, dated 5-14-58, "#10-O-Am-A.R.", would be tooth #10, occlusal, amalgam filling, anesthesia required. This 5-14-58 visit would also have been when the repair was done on the failed tooth #13 amalgam filling done earlier, again not repeated on the p. 2 chart because that was already documented and dated on p. 1.

Interesting Chris N. It is probably only coincidence that 260 pounds is the weight of a corpse, but my favorite detail re Campisi is this: In his House Select Committee testimony in 1978, in the context of being questioned about his relationship to Marcello of New Orleans:

Campisi: ...He [Carlos Marcello] has called me and asked me if I needed any crab claws or softshell crabs, and every year I send them [Marcello family] sausage, 260 pounds of Italian sausage that I send to them for Christmas to give to all of the brothers [of Carlos Marcello] and what friends I have there. I send like 260 pounds of sausage every year that I make special with walnuts and celery.
Q. Is there some reason why you send him 260 pounds to divide between everybody?
Campisi: No. No. I send each [Marcello] brother, and then I have a lot of cousins there. I have a lot of relatives there, and I send sausage to all of them.

While in my interview with Curington, in commenting on Ruby shooting Oswald, Curington, who knew Civello, Campisi, and had met Marcello, happened to use this figure of speech:

"I don't think that Ruby wanted to do the shooting. But then he had no other choice. You know, somebody told him what needs to be done. And he knew if he didn't do it, he could very well have been ground up in a sausage grinder, and all his brothers and sisters and everybody else there. So its not that simple to just say, 'well I don't believe I'll load my gun this morning and go down and shoot somebody.' You don't have, you know, you don't have that choice there."

I think I have a mundane explanation for the classroom photo: Oswald has the cap of an ink pen in his teeth. On the general classroom photo (not the blowup closeup of Oswald's face) on page 1 of this thread, on my computer screen, when I magnify that photo, it becomes clear that the dark spot is actually a perfect circle--a dark perfect circle against an off-white background (of the teeth). The separate blowup/closeup of the face has a more splotchy, ragged, or rough appearance without a clear perfect circle, attributable I assume to decay of the image in making that blowup. But when I magnify the general classroom image on my computer screen and look at Oswald's teeth, the dark spot is a perfect circle. That perfect circle is no missing tooth--it is something Oswald is holding between his teeth directly facing the camera, hence an end-view of the object. Oswald is holding a pen in his right hand. It must be the cap of that pen.

According to the Austin & Frey 11/27/63 interview of Voebel, Voebel said he entered the classroom to take pictures for the school yearbook and Oswald, who knew him, clowned spontaneously when he saw the camera and his friend. What else would a round--round circle--object held between Oswald's teeth be than the cap of a pen.

Thank you for your answer Jim Hargrave. After I had posted I found Linda E. Norton et al, "The Exhumation and Identification of Lee Harvey Oswald", Journal of Forensic Sciences 29/1 (Jan. 1984): 19-38 (which I found at http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/norton_report_with_high_quality_images.pdf). And it is clear there that the #10 tooth in both the exhumation and in Oswald's 1956 and 1958 dental records when enlisting into and in the Marines, is a natural tooth, because there is a distal (rear surface) amalgam filling on #10. In fact the 1958 Marines dental record has a specific notation of the amalgam filling being done on #10 in 1958.  

The rest of that article seems to leave no doubt that the dental records match and it is the same Oswald, so that is not an issue with me. That leaves the fight and the two photos which look like Oswald is missing a tooth, which to me must then be explained in some terms other than a missing #10 or a missing any other tooth, since a missing natural front tooth is not supported by the dental records. One of the two photos, the Civil Air Patrol photo, seems to be simply an optical illusion of a missing tooth at #10, when really it is the fact that Oswald's #9 (front incisor) and #11 (canine) are each significantly longer teeth than the shorter #10. With a top lip coming down over the teeth partway, the camera catches the bottoms of #9 and #11 with nothing in the space of #10, making it look like a tooth is missing there, but which is not actually the case. With that dispensed with, and testimony as to what happened in the fight being non-probative (the dental records are what are probative), the only remaining puzzle is the classroom photo. I do not know what to make of that, but I do note that it does not exactly look like a simple missing #10 tooth (or a simple missing #9 tooth) either. The odd shape of the dark space--since Oswald was not missing teeth in that position either in 1956 or 1958 or in the 1981 exhumation per the dental records in each of those three cases--makes me think it must be an unexplained shadow or something in the photograph. I did wonder if, if the picture was taken immediately after the fight, whether that dark area might represent some temporary dressing or bandage of bleeding which might have shown up dark in a photograph, but I cannot find parallel examples of that. While I do not know what that dark space is, to me an interpretation that it is a missing tooth or missing teeth cannot be correct because of the dental records. At least that is how I see it. I did post too quickly re the implant idea; I did not know what I was talking about not having dug a little further to read the Norton et al. study; you rightly corrected the implant idea (thanks); and now I am out of this topic having no further questions on the matter.  

Please excuse a very trivial, basic question to this discussion from a newcomer, but: what is the evidence that the #10 incisor tooth in the Oswald exhumation photo, the tooth in between the two front incisors and the right canine (from our/viewer's point of view of the photograph)--the tooth that is shorter and looks possibly slightly lighter in color than the other teeth, in that position in the exhumation photo--is a natural tooth and not an implant?

I have no expertise in dentistry, but a cursory check with dental sites shows implants--prosthetic teeth--looking indistinguishable from natural teeth, such as these before and after photos: https://smileenvydental.com/before-after-dental-implants-atlanta/. 

If this question has been asked and answered before, I apologize.

A missing #10 incisor would explain the two photos showing the youthful Oswald missing a tooth in that position, the testimony that he lost a tooth in a fight, the dental records referring to a prosthetic that failed--and presumably would be replaced again--, the Marines photo showing a full set of teeth (this would be with implant at #10), and finally, the exhumation photo. Same Oswald, same teeth, #10 implant (prosthetic tooth). Is this too simple of a solution?

Ron Ecker, on the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter, the 1977 National Enquirer article (6/14/77) reported that Curington gave a copy of that letter to the FBI to investigate, and the FBI made the letter public.

"Curington recently turned over to the FBI a copy of a letter that he's convinced was written by Oswald to H. L. Hunt. After questioning Curington for several hours, the FBI made the letter public. 

"The handwritten letter--dated Nov. 8, 1963, exactly two weeks before the assassination--states: "Dear Mr. Hunt, I would like information concerning my position. I am asking only for information. I suggest we discuss the matter fully before any steps are taken by me or anyone else. Thank you, Lee Harvey Oswald."

"Three handwriting analysts--all certified with the International Graphoanalysis Society--certified that 'the letter is the authentic writing of Lee Harvey Oswald and was written by him'."

I have read the documents of the FBI investigation of that letter, including the FBI interview of Curington and other relevant persons, on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website (they can be found at that site starting p. 17 at "Admin Folder-N2: HSCA Administrative Folder, 1/27/77 Inquiry, R#6330). The FBI investigation documents trace the origin of the letter to its mailing from Mexico City to three JFK assassination researchers, one of whom, Penn Jones of Midland, TX, showed it to a Dallas reporter who asked Curington for his opinion about it. Curington then brought the letter to the attention of an official in the Dallas Internal Revenue Intelligence Division with whom Curington was in an informant relationship, and the IRS official in turn reported it to the FBI, and then the letter became public and the FBI did its investigation. To my knowledge there is no evidence of the existence of this letter before the mailing of the copies from Mexico City in 1976. An early story from 1977 on the three handwriting analysts' assessment that the writing was Oswald's is here: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/O Disk/Oswald Lee Harvey Mexico/014.pdf. In 1983 a Soviet-bloc spy chief defecting to the UK claimed that the letter had been a Soviet forgery intended to implicate E. Howard Hunt of CIA and Watergate fame (not H.L. Hunt) as part of Cold War disinformation, in Andrews and Mitrokin, The Sword and the Shield. 

Curington today, and in his recent book, Motive and Opportunity (2018), gives an account of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter which differs on the timing. Curington claimed to me that the letter was shown to H. L. Hunt., by him, Curington, personally, in 1963. (And H. L. Hunt died in 1974.) Curington told me the letter was delivered anonymously, left on the desk of a secretary at the Hunt Oil offices, in the days or weeks immediately following the JFK assassination. Curington says the letter came to him, he showed the letter to H. L. Hunt, and Hunt said give it to the FBI, which Curington says he did. 

Curington says H. L. Hunt never knew or had contact with Oswald and that he and Hunt assumed the letter was one of many crank type of letters that came their way. Therefore although the main point of Curington's book is basically a circumstantial case drawing from his experiences that H. L. Hunt was involved in if not a prime mover in the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK, this particular document--which would be made to order in support of his argument--Curington rejects. 

Here is Curington's present (2018) published account, as told to writer Mitchel Whitington (Motive and Opportunity, 120-122):

"Let me say again that I'm not interested in addressing all of the conspiracy theories surrounding hte JFK assassination that involve--or clear--H.L. Hunt. But there has been a lot of discussion and speculation over the years about a letter that Lee Harvey Oswald supposedly wrote to Mr. Hunt, and because that theoretically involves him directly, I thought that I would mention it. A letter surfaced during the investigation into the Kennedy assassination that simply read: <text of letter>.

"This letter showed up in our interoffice mail system after the assassination, and that in and of itself wasn't peculiar. The 1960s were a more innocent age; people will find the stories in this book of getting on an airplane with a briefcase full of money or using an airline ticket in someone else's name to be altogether unbelievable. In reality, the idea of security was nothing even close to what it is today. By the same token, people would often drop off an envelope at the front desk of Hunt Oil, and it would get put into the mail system for delivery to the addressee. That is exactly how the 'Dear Mr. Hunt' letter came in, and since it did, in fact, involve Mr. Hunt, and did, in fact, suggest a meeting with Oswald, we elected to turn it over to the FBI and never saw it again. In private, Mr. Hunt did raise the question as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald could be a Life Line listener, something that I think might have been a concern for him.

"This letter has become legendary over the years. Some say it came from an anonymous source, or from Mexico, or from this person or that. It has been said that it was definitely written by Oswald because o[f] one particular curlicue on a letter, or that it couldn't have been written by Oswald because of another paritcular curlicue on another letter. Personally, I have no idea whether it was written by Oswald or not. I only know that it showed up in our office and we gave it to the FBI. What they did with it, or how they funneled it to whoever is something that I have no idea about."

I questioned Curington about the discrepancy in timing with the FBI interview report of him. According to the FBI interview report, they asked Curington (and others) if they had ever seen the letter prior to their recent receipt of it in 1976-1977, and, according to the FBI interview report, Curington answered he had not. I sent Curington a copy of the interview report, which I do not think until then he had any idea existed. His book had not gone to press and I urged Curington to recheck his facts and memory on this point because it was important (as to the timing), and  if he had perchance erred in his memory to get it corrected before his book went to press (it had not yet gone to press). Obviously if he was certain of his facts, that would be the only reason to keep it as is. Curington's answer to me was, he did not remember the FBI interview (two agents visiting him) at all! He told me he honestly did not remember anything about it. But since the FBI agents' interview was reported in the National Enquirer story in 1977, and Curington knew the Enquirer story about himself well, it seems more likely that Curington's memory is faulty than that the FBI fabricated an interview. I wanted to ask Curington about the details of what the FBI report said (in light of stories of witnesses claiming that they were misreported in FBI agents' field reports to their offices), but that was not possible since he remembered nothing of it at all. He did say, upon reading it, that one thing the FBI had was certainly wrong: they had in that report Curington saying his office was next to Bunker Hunt's (son of H. L. Hunt). Curington said Bunker Hunt's office was at the other end of the building, and his office was next to H. L. Hunt's office (and he drew me a diagram of the Hunt Oil offices to illustrate). Curington stuck to his story and Motive and Opportunity appeared in print unchanged on this point. As for why the National Enquirer would have Curington "recently", in 1977, turning the letter over to the FBI in agreement with the timing in the FBI investigation documents, Curington said the National Enquirer had gotten things wrong in its story of him. Curington said people have sent him copies of the letter over the years and so he did not deny that in 1977, but said the letter first became known to him in 1963.

The obvious question is: has he gotten his timing confused over time on this? That is what I suspected. One other possible detail of interest. When I visited him in person for the interview I talked to him more about the letter. He seemed to struggle to check his memory and said he thought he remembered his and H. L.'s friend on the Dallas police force, Lt. George Butler, as who he may have given the letter to, and Lt. Butler then gave it to the FBI. Lt. Butler died in 1980. 

The key points I take away from this are (a) Curington was the source of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter to the FBI and its becoming public knowledge; (b) apart from Curington's own recent claim, there is no evidence verifying the existence of any copies of that letter prior to 1976; (c) Curington NOT citing this letter as in support of his own belief that H.L. Hunt did the JFK assassination--when it would serve his argument beautifully to do so--could be interpreted as an argument in favor of Curington's honesty, as distinguished from infallibility in relative chronology of memory. But in the end, on this story I do not know, and this is about all I know on that. 

Chris N., on the Marina visit to HL Hunt, if Curington's account of the HL Hunt/Civello interaction the night before Oswald was killed is correct, Hunt either knew or played a contributing role in Oswald being hit. I interpret it as Hunt would meet to give money or set up some financial arrangement for the widow, and the reason for the personal meeting, as Curington speculated, was for Hunt to see what Marina thought or knew.

That HL Hunt had some idea of the truth of what had happened with JFK--whether or not he knew specifics--is the interpretation of Curington as reported in the 1977 National Enquirer story (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/C Disk/Currington John W/Item 01.pdf ).

"When the Warren Commission was established, Hunt made sure he knew its every move, said Curington. 'H. L. was very interested in the Warren Commission investigation', he said. 'We had an intelligence system set up so that we received daily reports from Washington on the commission's activities.'

"In 1967, Curington said, Hunt told his senior aides he knew there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that Oswald did not act alone.

"Hunt stressed this belief in a remarkable conversation with several top aides four years after the assassination, said Walter Tabaka, 56, a Washington lobbyist for Hunt for nine years.  Tabaka recalled:

"'One of us suggested to Hunt that he put up a $100,000 reward for any information leading to the Kennedy assassination. Hunt said, 'If I do that I'll be a marked man within 48 hours.'

"'I said, "Mr. Hunt, do you mean there was a conspiracy?" His two words were, "sure was".' 

"Curington told The Enquirer, 'This was confirmation for me that Hunt didn't just think there was a conspiracy--he knew.'"

This would be parallel to the recounting of Curington at the end of my interview, of HL Hunt's refusal to assist Garrison financially in Garrison's attempt to solve the JFK case. 

Chris N., I am not as knowledgeable as some here but I think it was Joe Campisi who was the friend and visitor of Ruby in jail immediately following the killing of Oswald (I don't recall Ruby being in a hospital until much later). Campisi, a restauranteer, was maybe #2 or #3 resident mobster below #1 Civello in Dallas. 

However Civello was not only linked to Ruby but someone on the Warren Commission appears to have intentionally altered a document publication to conceal that. From David Scheim, Contract on America (1988), 98-99, with attention to the final two paragraphs below.

“In an FBI interview on January 14, 1964, [Dallas Mob boss Joseph] Civello stated that he had known [Jack] Ruby casually ‘for about ten years.’ Like fellow Mafioso Joseph Campisi, however, Civello was being modest about the extent of his association with Ruby.

“The Ruby-Civello relationship was illuminated by Bobby Gene Moore, who grew up in Dallas and worked for Ruby at various times between 1952 and 1956 as a pianist in the Vegas Club. After the assassination, Moore was prompted to contact the FBI by a statement on television that his former employer had no gangster connections. He was interviewed by agents on November 26, 1963 in Oakland, California.

“Moore told the FBI of deals involving Ruby, two Dallas policemen, and local underworld figures; several of his allegations were verified years later by arrests for the activities he described. But most interesting was Moore’s report about an Italian importing company at 3400 Ross Avenue in Dallas, where Moore was employed during the early 1950s. Moore was characteristically accurate when he told the FBI he suspected that his employers, Joseph ‘Cirello’ and Frank LaMonte, might have been importing narcotics. For the Dallas directory listed the store at 3400 Ross Avenue to a brother of Mafia boss Joseph Civello. The Joseph “Cirello” transcribed by the FBI was thus Joseph Civello, whose business fronts included import-export, olive oil and cheese, and whose criminal activities did in fact include narcotics dealings.

“Given Civello’s top Mob status, an additional statement of Moore is quite significant. Moore told the FBI in his November 1963 interview that Ruby was ‘a frequent visitor and associate of Cirello and LaMonte.’ Interviewed in 1964 by the FBI, LaMonte admitted having known Ruby since the early 1950s, further corroborating Moore’s assertions. Additional confirmation was provided by author Ovid Demaris, who reported that Civello told him, ‘Yeah, I knew Jack—we were friends and I used to go to his club.’

“Bobby Gene Moore’s FBI interview, spanning two pages in National Archives files, was published by the Warren Commission as Exhibit 1536. But the Commission’s published version gave no inkling of Ruby’s frequent visits with Dallas Mafia boss Joseph Civello. Also excluded was Moore’s expressed belief that Ruby ‘was connected with the underworld in Dallas.’

“In fact, the entire second page of the original National Archives report was omitted in Commission Exhibit 1536. And three paragraphs of the original’s first page, mentioning Joseph ‘Cirello,’ were blanked out from an otherwise perfect photocopy of that page. In this fashion, with seven of the original nine paragraphs omitted or excised, Moore’s account became almost compatible with the Warren Commission’s denial of a ‘significant link between Ruby and organized crime.’”

On pp. 174-175 of the Scheim book, a visually striking comparison can be seen of photographs side by side of the complete version of the FBI interview in the National Archives, and the earlier published shortened version in the Warren Commission Exhibit with final paragraphs inexplicably missing.

This unmarked deletion of those paragraphs--through photocopying and whiteout undetectable to a reader of the WC Exhibit--agrees with Warren Commission tendenz in other cases. For example, I noticed that the very name of Carlos Marcello of New Orleans, believed to control Dallas and Civello, I noticed does not even appear in the index of the WC report. Curington's account of his middle-of-the-night in-person visit to Civello, on instruction from Hunt, to give Civello intelligence after casing the police station's physical security, hours before Ruby killed Oswald the next morning in that building, also is not in the WC report but that would be because Curington's story was not known prior to 1977. 

Incidentally, speaking strictly conjecturally on my own here, I would not consider Hunt's action that evening with tasking Curington to assist Civello with finding information in this way, per Curington's account, as necessarily meaning Hunt would have been directly involved in the killing of either JFK or Oswald. There are independent reasons to suppose there was Mob intent to kill Oswald, and it is easy to imagine Hunt via Curington responding to or offering Civello (with whom Hunt otherwise was friendly, per Curington) that form of assistance, without necessarily implying further culpability (beyond knowledge that some kind of hit of Oswald looked like it may be in the works, though the reason why such information was sought need not have been asked or told). Nor is it clear that the information Curington provided Civello, per Curington, was or was not used in the Ruby killing of Oswald.

Curington simply tells his story; it was first reported in a National Enquirer interview of Curington in 1977; National Enquirer claimed in their 1977 story that they verified that the arrested person Curington said he went to visit that evening as his cover for being at the Dallas city jail, was in the jail that evening; Curington was Hunt's aide as he says he was; it is consistent with other known and independent indicators of Ruby/Mob, Ruby/Civello, and Ruby/intent-to-kill-Oswald; and I saw no indication that Curington was fabricating this story. It has not received much attention, relatively speaking, I assume because it was not picked up by either of the two major investigations (WC, and House Select Committee on Assassinations) nor featured in Garrison's, and because Curington has lived mostly in obscurity.

I have an interview of John Curington, aide to Dallas oilman H.L. Hunt. Curington says the night before Ruby shot Oswald, HL Hunt had him, Curington, go to the Dallas police station and get the layout of the inside of the building and security information, then relay that information, that night, to local Dallas mobster Joseph Civello.

"Billionaire Logic and the Fate of JFK: Interview with John Curington, Right-hand Man and Attorney to H.L. Hunt of Dallas, Texas (the Richest Man in the World in 1963), Concerning the Assassination of President Kennedy". https://www.academia.edu/37779052/BILLIONAIRE_LOGIC_AND_THE_FATE_OF_JFK_Interview_with_John_Curington_Right-hand_Man_and_Attorney_to_H.L._Hunt_of_Dallas_Texas_the_Richest_Man_in_the_World_in_1963_Concerning_the_Assassination_of_President_Kennedy._2018_ .

I am from Akron, Ohio. Education is BA Linguistics, U of Oregon; MA Near Eastern Studies, Cornell; dr. theology, U. of Copenhagen. I have a number of scholarly publications on the Dead Sea Scrolls available at my page on academia.edu.