Greg Doudna

Bill your article raises the question whether Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth saw the Connally Feb. 23, 1962 reply to LHO's letter of Jan. 30, 1962 ("did Korth know about this proceeding at any time before it was final?"). Connally's reply to Oswald stated that he was "no longer connected to the Navy" and that he has "referred your [LHO's] letter to the office of the Secretary of the Navy in Washington, D.C."

It may be of interest that Captain Andy Kerr, counsel in the Secretary of the Navy's office, described receiving the LHO letter and showing it to and discussing it with his boss the Secretary of the Navy, who would have been Korth. I found this and related documents in Chapter 4 of Pierre Sundborg, Tragic Truth (2016), from the memoir of Kerr, A Journey Among the Good and the Great (1987).

There is a wrinkle here though: although Korth was Secretary of the Navy in February 1962, Kerr speaks of his boss in Washington, D.C. with whom he discussed LHO's Jan. 30, 1962 letter, the Secretary of the Navy, as "Connally", even though Korth, not Connally, was Secretary of the Navy at that point. Sundborg notes this anomaly in Kerr's account and in a footnote reconstructs what he, Sundborg, believes is the explanation:

""Kerr wrote 'aboard our 43-foot sailing cutter Andiomo III at anchor in lovely Cook's Bay, Moorea, in Fench Polynesia...from memory. ....Without access to...files...there are doubtless...errors.' There was one problem--Kerr confused the already-resigned Connally with the successor Korth. What you will read here has been corrected in that regard, otherwise it's as Captain Kerr wrote" (Sundborg, fn. Q, p. 95).

Since the Sundborg book is not available online and there are only ca. 300 paper copies in existence (from the author's information), I quote below the account from Kerr in full as it appears in Sundborg. Where Kerr evidently wrote "Connally" Sundborg replaces with bracketed "[new Secretary Korth]" in quoting the Kerr passage. Here is the passage, cited as from pp. 1-3 of Kerr, Journey Among the Good and the Great, quoted in Sundborg at pp. 95-96:

"One day we got a letter from Lee Harvey Oswald. The name meant nothing to us then. The letter was long and handwritten and was mailed from Russia...It had been processed routinely in the secretary's mail room. Someone there decided that I, as special counsel to the secretary, should 'staff' the letter. The decision was logical because [it] had legal overtones. So it fell to me to decide what to do with the letter. ...

"Those unfamiliar with the U.S. military services should know at this point that the Marine Corps is part of the Navy Department. Even the secretary of the navy needed to remind himself of this fact from time to time to avoid oversights damaging to delicate Marine Corps sensibilities. [There was] a sign over the door leading out of this office that read, 'Remember the Marines.' It reminded him to call the Marine Corps commandant to apprise him of important decisions before they became public. The flamboyant commandant at that time, General David Shoup, could become particularly peevish if this was not done.

"When Oswald left the Marine Corps and went to live in Russia, he was given an administrative discharge that was less than commendatory...'undesirable.' He thought that characterization unfair. Later events were to prove the epithet to have been exceptionally mild. The letter was an attention getter. You don't find many Marines defecting to the Soviet Union.

"I sent to Marine Corps Headquarters for Oswald's record, and studied the circumstances of his defection and subsequent discharge. There were no conflicts of fact between his letter and his record. A review of the statutes and regulations governing administrative discharges let to the conclusion that Oswald's discharge was in complete3 compliance with all legal requirements.

"That, however, was not the end of it. The secretary can exercise clemency if he feels that there are strong extenuating circumstances. He may also intervene if an applicant's service was exceptionally meritorious.

"Neither applied to Oswald. He had been a lousy Marine.

"So I prepared the usual two papers that accompany all correspondence going into the secretary's 'action' basket. The first was a brief, setting forth everything I thought the secretary needed to know in order to make an informed decision. It concluded with a recommendation for action. The second was a paper for the secretary to sign that would put the recommended action into effect.

"In Oswald's case, my conclusions were that his complaint had no legal basis, his request was without merit, and that [new Secretary Korth] [[here is where Kerr evidently ACTUALLY WROTE, erroneously, "Connally"--gd]] should not involve himself in any way. I recommended that he refer to the letter to the commandant of the Marine Corps for 'appropriate action.' This phrase meant, in clear officialese, that the secretary was washing his hands of the case. The commandant could do with it as he wished. No one could doubt what the result would be. It was a kiss-off.

"A day or two later, [Korth] [[again, according to Sundborg, Kerr actually wrote "Connally" here--gd]] called me into his office. He had obviously read the entire file and was intrigued. We discussed the case for half an hour or so, and at the end he said, 'I agree with you, Andy--this is the way we should handle it.' He then signed the second piece of paper that sent Oswald's letter on its way, we thought, to oblivion.

"But that's not the way it turned out. On 22 November 1963, while riding beside President Kennedy in a motorcade in Dallas, John Connally, then governor of Texas, was shot through his arm and lung by Lee Harvey Oswald. President Kennedy was shot and killed in the same incident. The history books say it slightly differently--that Connally was wounded during Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy. The assumption is always that Oswald was shooting at Kennedy and that Connally was hit by accident or as a secondary target of opportunity. Could it not, however, have been the other way around? In spite of all of the investigations, including that of the Warren Commission, and the continuing fascination with and theories about the event, no one has yet come up with a credible motive for the shooting of Kennedy by Oswald. Against this, we know for a fact that Oswald once asked Connally for help in what may have been a cri du coeur. He was turned down flat. What greater motivation does a psychopath need?

"Thus, by fortune I am able to provide a footnote to history..."

Ron, on further thinking I have abandoned the idea that Connally was the target. First, it is too coincidental that that head shot to JFK so perfectly killed JFK; the Connally wounds are better explained as collateral damage of shots aimed at JFK than vice versa. Second, the strongest claim in favor of the Connally theory, Dallas Secret Service agent Mike Howard's claim, first voiced in 1993, to have seen "I will kill John Connally" (and three others) written in LHO's blue-green address book on a page which Howard says the FBI removed after it came into their possession, I have now studied quite a bit and I believe I can show that that claim, otherwise unverified, will not stand, for reasons which I may develop into an article. And third, on other grounds I am convinced that the JFK assassination was a hit, a coup d'etat, directed at JFK, not Connally (primarily, because there was more than one shooter). 

Zach Jendro, thank you for your research in your series on "The Possessions of Lee Harvey Oswald". A question: in your article in that series, "Photographic Equipment" (https://debunked.wordpress.com/the-possessions-of-lee-harvey-oswald-photographic-equipment/), you say, "However, in Oswald's address book (found at the Paine residence) is a notation for Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall (JCS), the company address, as well as the words 'micro dots'."

Could you say what is your basis for identifying the Paine residence as where the Oswald address book was found? 

On the claim of Curington that he witnessed Marina Oswald at the Hunt Oil building visiting HL Hunt shortly after the JFK assassination, according to National Enquirer denied by Marina Oswald, I was surprised recently to discover in the original 1992 first edition of Dick Russel's The Man Who Knew Too Much, pp. 602-603, this, which in my interpretation, if this report is accurate, removes the force of the denial from Marina published in National Enquirer:

(D. Russell) "In June 1992 I spoke with Marina--remarried to Kevin Porter and still living in Dallas--by phone. 'I was taken to somebody's office, but I have no idea what I went there for. I don't think it was the FBI that took me. Yes, it is very possible I went to see the oil millionaire, but I can't remember the face. Everything is so vague about that time. I was a walking zombie. I just know that all the different agencies were fighting with each other. What it was all about, I don't know.'"

Curiously, I found that the second edition of this Dick Russell book, published 2003, has that (above) deleted, with the surrounding paragraphs and material intact.

I would like to add this regarding the "Dear Mr. Hunt" Oswald note dated Nov. 8, 1963, and Mr. Curington's claim that he remembered that note had come in to the Hunt Oil offices around the time of the JFK assassination. This was the one point of Curington's reminiscences which most troubled me. While I still do not know what to make of that note, here are some considerations. 

A first point is that the handwriting is seemingly authentic Oswald. This does not exclude forgery since some forgeries can be very good and fool experts. But it is not excluded as forgery in terms of being shown forgery on handwriting grounds. 

A second point is the story of Mitrokhin--the Polish high intelligence official who defected to the West (UK) with a mother lode of information on Soviet intelligence files which were published in narrative form in The Sword and The Shield (1983)--has its own set of issues. From reviews I have read of this work, the main criticism from the point of view of historians and Cold War scholars is that no documents are presented or cited; it is entirely taking the word of the defector, Mitrokhin. While Mitrokhin's narrative is loaded with details and much of it is plausible and/or confirmed, there is little way of knowing whether it is all true. The two claims in Mitrokhin most relevant to the JFK assassination are a claim that Mark Lane was funded with KGB money, and a story of forgery in Moscow of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" Oswald letter. A footnote gave a certain box number in an archive held at the Churchill Archives Center at Churchill College, UK. I attempted to find the underlying information or documentation. I wrote the Churchill Archives Center, explained I could not afford a trip to England and did not know Russian, and asked for assistance in accessing and translating the underlying documentation, offering to pay for time and expenses. In reply I received a referral to a private party, a woman who had some experience doing research and translation of the Mitrokhin materials. I contacted her and arranged for this to be done. She prepared and sent me a translation of a text from the location cited. After spending my money and her labor on this, I realized that it was nothing more than a translation of a draft manuscript of Mitrokhin of the section in Sword and the Shield! It contained no new or different information, still no reference to or presentation of any document. So that was a deadend. Mitrokhin himself is deceased, and to my knowledge no other information from Soviet-era files is known which corroborates or sheds further light on this.

My question at the time of my inquiry to the Churchill Archives was whether somehow the Soviets had come into possession of an authentic Oswald document, and the activity in Moscow involved their own checks for authenticity of it, rather than de novo preparation of a forgery out of whole cloth. Mitrokhin said the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter was for the purpose of linking E. Howard Hunt, then of Watergate fame (1970s), as part of Cold War. However, I noticed that the USSR seemed to have no prior or other history of forging documents of this nature; that the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter is so ambiguous that if the intent were to seriously damage the US with an Oswald document it would have been done with more specifics to it; and of course the somewhat equivocal nature of the unconfirmed source for it in the first place.

Another dissonant detail in the Mitrokhin story to me was the part in that story of the Soviets getting authentic paper for use in the forgery, as if the Soviets somehow got paper from Texas ca. 1963. But nothing was ever circulated other than photocopies, nor did the Soviet government ever openly disclose that they had found this document and produced it.

Now I leave what is "known" (very little) to a conjecture. I set this forth not because I am sure it is correct but just as a possibility. The "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter emerged late 1976/early 1977 in a context of (among other things) a series of accusations against HL Hunt and Bunker Hunt (son of HL) from Paul Rothermel, HL Hunt's ex-assistant who apparently had intelligence agency connections. Rothermel was feeding JFK-assassination conspiracy materials to assassination researchers. In the documents of the FBI investigation of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter on the Mary Ferrel Foundation website, the interview with Bunker Hunt has Bunker Hunt denying any knowledge of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter (at this point his father, HL, was dead; he died in 1974) and told the FBI he suspected Rothermel himself had produced that. So that was Bunker Hunt's first thought: this looked like one more thing coming from Rothermel. 

Rothermel would have been in a position to have had a copy of such a document if one had come in to the Hunt Oil offices in 1963. There is no credible allegation or reason to suppose Oswald had anything to do directly with HL Hunt. However it could just be possible that the "Mr. Hunt" of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter could be, not HL Hunt, but Bunker Hunt, the son. Not that Oswald need ever have met Bunker Hunt either. But Bunker Hunt was one of the financiers of the black-bordered anti-JFK ad or flyer put out by Weissman and Larrie Schmidt. There is the story in Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much (pp. 325-29 of the 1992 edition), of Bradford Angers, who says he used to work for HL Hunt and that HL Hunt called him and told him to employ Larrie Schmidt; then Angers' claim that he discovered by accident that Larrie Schmidt and his wife had been beaten up badly by unknown persons warning them to say nothing of either the JFK assassination or HL Hunt; and that he (Angers) had learned from Larrie Schmidt that both Schmidt brothers (Larrie and Bob, who was employed by Edwin Walker) had rode around in a car with Oswald the night that Oswald took a shot at Walker (so Angers' story). 

Nov. 8, 1963, the date on the Oswald "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter, is a Friday, a Friday which was the one Friday that LHO came out to the Paine residence to visit Marina one day later than normal--on Saturday that weekend instead of Friday. It was the day before Oswald typed his letter to the Soviet embassy in D.C. at the Paine residence (Nov. 9). Nov. 8, Friday, is also possibly when LHO either wrote or even delivered the famous hostile note to the FBI office for Hosty, leaving it there since Hosty was gone from the office when Oswald was there. (Although I think most studies reconstruct the Oswald appearance in the FBI office with the hostile note as having occurred maybe Tue Nov. 12). According to Curington--who is adamant that HL Hunt never had any knowledge or anything to do with Oswald and that the note had come in to the office left with a receptionist and was regarded by HL Hunt (whose right-hand assistant Curington was, and claims to remember this) as a crank note, one among hundreds of crank notes they routinely received--but which crank note was then turned over to the FBI at HL Hunt's instruction after the assassination (per Curington)--according to Curington the m.o. of Oswald's method of delivery with the "Dear Mr. Hunt" handwritten letter was exactly the same as Oswald's method of delivery of the (later FBI-destroyed) "Dear Mr. Hosty" handwritten letter: in both cases walked in in person to the respective buildings in downtown Dallas, presumably during Oswald's lunch hour from work, and handed to a receptionist upon failing to get access to the addressee in person.

In other words--while I am not claiming this is actually correct, because I do not know--I can envision a possibility that the LHO "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter of Nov. 8, 1963 is authentic (in agreement with handwriting analysts at the time); that it was prepared and delivered at about or at the same time and delivered in the same way as the "Dear Mr. Hosty" letter; that both originals ended up in custody of the FBI which may have had both--not just one--destroyed; and that the "Mr. Hunt" addressee was Bunker Hunt, not HL Hunt or E. Howard Hunt. The reason Oswald might write such a note to Bunker Hunt--this is just speculation here, but anyway--would be via some renewed LHO contact with the circles being funded by Bunker Hunt in publishing the anti-JFK ad. If the note is genuine, it could further read as Oswald attempting to get information as an informant.

In the 1970s FBI investigation of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter, those documents show the FBI themselves as suspecting Bunker Hunt as the "Mr. Hunt" of the letter, in keeping with other serious allegations Rothermel was making at the time against Bunker Hunt. The theory would be that the note had come in to the Hunt Oil offices, had ended up in Rothermel's hands, for use later after Rothermel had his falling-out with the Hunts. Curington as the other right-hand man to HL Hunt besides Rothermel in the early 1960s would know of the note. To the FBI, Rothermel at first seemed to say he may have heard of the note in the 1960s but Rothermel later clarified that to the FBI saying he could not remember for certain anything of the note before its known appearance in the mid-1970s. The FBI reported that Curington denied he had ever seen or knew anything of the note before the mid-1970s--that was the fundamental discrepancy which troubled me--but in the end that could be equivocal, in light of other known disputes over he-says/she-says genre disagreements over what witnesses said to FBI agents and what FBI agents heard and/or wrote up in their reports. 

The method of dissemination of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" note--from a fake address in Mexico City mailed to three (three known anyway) JFK-assassination researchers--would correspond to Rothermel's interactions with JFK assassination researchers and knowledge of who they were. Of course minimally the disseminator of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter would involve knowledge of Spanish and physical presence at some point in Mexico City, from where the photocopies of the letter were mailed. 

So this long chain of conjecture returns to the original issue for me of the assessment of Curington's living testimony. There is no OTHER instance in which I have found a sign of fabrication of a story on the part of Curington. If there were other instances, that would weigh in favor of dismissing Curington's testimony on the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter. But there are not other clear instances weighing against his credibility. The line of analysis I have given above I believe, to me, renders the whole issue of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" note sufficiently equivocal that although it is possible Curington's memory is confused with the passage of time, another possibility is that Curington's story regarding the "Dear Mr. Hunt" note could in the end be approximately correct after all. 

My problem with the Corbett Report is it attacks Chomsky, Snowden, Ellsburg, and Glenn Greenwald. I am not referring to disagreements on specifics such as Chomsky on the JFK/Vietnam issue (where I believe Chomsky errs), but in attacking these figures in conspiratorial sweeps as covert evildoers. Anyone who attacks individuals I have just named in that way (to which I would add Pope Francis and Soros and am tempted to also add Bernie Sanders), fails my litmus test for being real. Again I am not referring to criticisms on specifics, but in painting these figures as wittingly evil or witting tools of larger evil conspiracies. When Corbett attacks not one on this personal litmus test of mine but four--again, not simply taking issue with specifics but painting these as wittingly evil with intent to discredit their major work and impact in principle--my internal flag goes up to wonder what is going on.

On Bill Gates, I think of it as useful to frame the question in this oversimplified way: which of the following three characterizations most closely approximates Gates' work with the Gates Foundation: (a) intends to do good and is doing good; (b) intends to do good but is doing evil; (c) intends to do evil and is doing evil.

My answer is I put Gates in the "a" category of the three, as best characterization. How Gates made his billions I have not studied but just assume it probably was cutthroat, but that is not the issue here, which is what Gates is doing with his billions with the Gates Foundation. For some reason--I don't know why--some of the right wing is ramping up demonization of Gates with industrial-strength conspiracy theory attacks. I have a friend, who comes from the left, who saw some videos and was telling me recently that Gates is intentionally planning on killing off a significant part of the world's population through vaccines. I asked him which of the a,b,c, above he believed best approximated Gates and he said "c". I asked, if Gates was covertly intent on mass murdering a percentage of the world's population, did he think Gates' staff was in on the plot? Were the physicians and scientists employed by the Gates Foundation in on the plot? He was uncertain but thought some were, some weren't. I asked, if this was the case, why have no whistleblowers come forward? I started listing some investigative-journalist sources with track records and history of credibility in breaking fact-based stories, sources whom I knew he (as I) know have some track record in this area, such as Amy Goodman, Mother Jones, Sixty Minutes, Greenpeace, Oxfam, some of the major newspaper dailies, the McClatchy newspaper chain, journalists such as Seymour Hersh or Leonard Bernstein or Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone, or some courageous state attorney general, etc and etc and etc--why are none of them breaking stories about a Gates Foundation plot to intentionally mass-murder billions of people of the world as covert population-reduction agenda? (if such was happening) 

In a better and just world the welfare of the world and the realization of the vision of e.g. the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, societies and the world would not be at the mercy or goodwill of generous billionaires to fund public or commons goods. But that aside, it seems conspiracy theories can be weaponized, and it requires discernment to know real conspiracies in the forensic sense to do evil, from constructed and weaponized ones.

Ron Ecker, not necessarily a contradiction. Speculating here, but you could have a situation of Oswald indebted to the Marcello organization and told/promised to kill Connally, building upon an already-existing motive of Oswald. This would set up a patsy and JFK assassins could piggyback on to the action carried out by the patsy. Someone put LHO's rifle on the sixth floor and someone fired from that building and LHO behaved after the shooting as if it was him. SS agent Mike Howard credibly insisted he saw "I will kill John Connally" written in LHO's address book before he, Howard, and fellow agent Chuck Kunkel turned that address book with their other materials over to the FBI, then were shocked to see a year later when the WC report was published that that page was missing, corresponding to a visibly torn-out sheet of pages 17-18, in the WC Exhibits of the notebook.

Marina and others who knew LHO such as Jeanne de Mohrenschildt, thought his Marine undesirable discharge, for which he blamed Connally and his exhausting appeal of which was turned down in summer 1963, was a major issue to LHO, interfering with his ability to obtain employment. Marina, as mercurial as she was, nevertheless told the Secret Service in the most direct way possible six days after the assassination, "I swear before God that Lee Oswald did not intend to kill President Kennedy" (note the wording) while at the same time, in that same interview, the agents reported, "Marina Oswald stated ... she is satisfied that Lee Oswald had killed President John F. Kennedy" (again note the wording; Secret Service interview 11/28/63). In other interviews and to the Warren Commission Marina said she thought LHO's shooting target was Connally, not JFK. 

LHO in the summer of 1963 showed signs of desperation: he fought with Marina whom he loved, failed at employment and money, unsuccessfully tried to talk Marina into hijacking a plane with him to Cuba, then sought desperately to defect to Cuba via the Mexico City visa attempt. I suspect his left-Marxism always was for real even as he also variously and unreliably for a time worked for intelligence agencies in the Marines. Perhaps he wanted to get to Cuba for real for a new life, and his attempts to defect to Cuba were to avoid what was shaping up for him to be a nightmare back in the US. Both of the two books which argue for Connally as LHO's target--J. Reston's and the much more extensive and formidably argued work of P. Sundborg--are WC lone-shooter books otherwise, so this is me speculating, not either of those authors. Three shots from LHO trying to hit Connally and one additional professional shot to JFK's head killing JFK, mission accomplished, Oswald blamed, Oswald dead, case closed. What do you think? Is this a plausible scenario? (Also thanks John Butler.)

Ron Ecker, Sundborg argues that from the point of view of the sixth-floor window, there was no shot for Connally on Houston Street until the limousine was very close to being underneath the sixth-floor window, due to the low position of Connally's seating behind a steel bar handrail ca. 4-6 inches in width located ca. 15-18 inches above the top of the front seat. (These inch estimates are from Kellerman WC testimony.) Dignitaries would hold on to it when standing. The bar is in all the photos. Here is Sundborg: 

"In May 1964, County Surveyor Robert H. West made a careful survey of Dealey Plaza to facilitate analysis of the shooting. Measurements are in feet. Oswald's windowsill is at altitude (above sea level) 490.9', the sidewalk in front of TSBD at 430.2'. The windowsill is 1' above the sixth floor. Oswald was almost 5'9" tall, so his eyes were about 4'4" above the windowsill. The sidewalk is 6" above the street. From Main to Elm, Houston Street is level. The limousine's handrail was 4'6" above the pavement. Thus, Oswald's eyes were 4.3+(490.9-430.2)+0.5-4.5=61.0' above the handrail as the limousine drove toward him.

"That same detailed survey map allows measuring precise horizontal distances from Oswald to the limousine. As it straightened from its turn from Main onto Houston, just on the north side of the Main Street crosswalk, as shown in the upper photo on page 515, the limousine's handrail was 283.1' from him. After the limousine neared him but had not yet begun its turn onto Elm Street, shown in both photos on page 516, it was a distance of 154.3'.

"Thus, the downward angle of Oswald's view into the limousine's passenger space at the farthest position is arctan (61.0 / 283.1) = arctan 0.216 = 12.2 degrees. When the limousine was in the closer position, the angle was arctan (61.0 / 154.3) = arctan 0.395 = 21.6 degrees. In other words, when he looked down into the limousine, re-created for the Warren Commission with the carefully positioned but dissimilar white vehicle in the photos on page 516, he (and you looking at those photos) are looking down at an angle of 21.6 degrees. By comparison, Oswald's last two shots that wounded and killed on Elm Street, were at a similar downward angle of 24 degrees.

"Now those rather accurate sightline angles may be applied to a photograph of the actual limousine, taken precisely when Oswald first saw it, as it turned onto Houston Street. This is the photo, previously used in Chapter 6 just before Nellie said the last words Jack ever heard, showing what people at street level saw as the limousine turned onto Houston Street... [photo, and then additional diagram and paragraph concerning interior specs of the limousine]...

"On this page the same photo is shown twice, with dark areas showing the portions of the vehicle and occupants that Oswald could not see at all clearly from his vantage, looking downward into the Lincoln from above its front. For any speculating that Oswald might see Connally through the tinted windshield, please consider that 6'4" agent Kellerman was sitting directly in front of the shorter governor, who was in a much lower seat. You will see this in many photos in this chapter. There could be many images like those below, showing what was blocked from the assassin's view as the car drove toward him. These two should suffice.

"The first shows what Oswald could see and not see at a downward angle 12.2 degrees into the car as it began to drive toward him on Houston Street. This photo corresponds to the first reenactment position on page 515. The Connallys are both hidden behind the windshield, its upturned visors, and tall agents Kellerman and Greer. Over the top of the handrail, Oswald can immediately see the heads and faces of both Kennedys: [photo with angle shading illustration]

"Below, the second image shows what Oswald could see and not see looking into the car at a downward angle of 21.6 degrees, as the Lincoln neared the end of its one-block drive toward him on Houston Street. This is when the limo is ready to turn left onto Elm Street, the reenactment position shown in natural view and through his rifle's scope on page 516. The Kennedys are now fully visible, but John Connally (on the far side of Nellie) is still hidden by the handrail.

"Putting it all together, the realistic situation is that almost the entire drive along Houston Street toward Oswald was required before Connally's head emerged from behind obstructions, and for the assassin to recognize him. There was no adequate time for Oswald to then aim and fire, because to do so after finding Connally would have had him firing almost vertically down into the top of Connally's head, an angle where the human body is smallest. Worse, because his window was only partially raised and had a brick sill projecting outside, the rifle may not have been able to aim down at such a steep angle. Lee then hurried to get off his first shot, the one that was wild and injured Jim Tague, fired in haste as the limousine went under the shelter of the branches and leaves of the oak tree on the curb of Elm Street.

(...) "I seriously submit to your careful consideration that there exists only one logical explanation for the fact that Oswald did not take the easy shot as the limousine drove slowly toward him through level open space, growing closer and larger every second. He saw President Kennedy, but he could not see his target ... If Oswald had been gunning for Kennedy, he would have taken easy shots at him, in plain sight as the limousine approached. The fact that he did not fire then is very strong evidence that his target was the man then concealed from view, John Connally." (Pierre Sundborg, Tragic Truth, pp. 528-532)  

Thanks Mark Knight and Ron Bulman. However I believe I have erred. Digging into the HSCA Appendix to Hearings VII, Firearms Panel Report, I see that according to the firearms experts on that panel, the dent in the shell casing was caused in ejection of the shell casing after it was fired, and therefore was compatible with having been fired from the sixth floor, i.e. three shots are not excluded for that reason. I found this Report here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol7.htm. At paragraphs #155 and #156, "It is the opinion of the panel that the dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was ejected from the rifle. This condition was duplicated during test-firing of the CE 139 rifle by the panel (See fig. 2.)"

Visual comparison of Fig. 2, in which the second of four test bullets fired (T-2) has a dent, and Fig. 8B, CE 543, the shell casing with the dent found on the sixth floor, has the same appearing dent, looks convincing to me. (Page views 381, 393, and 397 at that site.) I see an earlier informative discussion on this forum from 2007 on this issue here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9276-an-unfired-cartridge/. I am not knowledgeable on firearms and capable of contesting the HSCA Firearms Panel's assessment. I retract my entire post above. (With note to self: read the primary sources first next time!) 

Deleted

I do not understand why some are claiming the LHO charts of 1956 and 1958 which show four wisdom teeth missing (#1,16,17,32) and #30 extracted, are inconsistent with the exhumation report of Norten et al. 1984 which shows all LHO wisdom teeth present and #30 extracted. In 1956 and 1958 LHO, born 10/18/39, was age 17 and age 19, respectively, whereas the exhumation examines teeth of LHO at age 24. Wisdom teeth erupt between ages 17-21 as the most common age range (https://www.healthline.com/health/why-do-we-have-wisdom-teeth#1). Norton et al. 1984 reported each of these wisdom teeth were "consistent" between the 1956, 1958, and exhumation examinations, seeing no discrepancy inconsistent with the same individual in any of those teeth. At LHO's death, age 24, the exhumation showed #1 "partially erupted" (versus not erupted earlier), #16 "partially erupted" (versus not erupted earlier), #17 "partially erupted" (versus not erupted earlier), and #32 "present" (versus not erupted earlier). These four wisdom teeth of LHO erupted some time later than age 19 yet prior to age 24, consistent with the age 17-21 range for most wisdom teeth eruptions. Norten et al noted for #1, "tooth noted as missing on several examinations and radiographs [of 1956, 1958] was actually unerupted and is not normally found in the radiographic view used" (p. 29). 

<skip>

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.