Mark Ulrik

Thanks for the explanation!

I'm just a simple country boy, so please bear with me. These "facts" are what others might call ideas or views, right?

And I notice that you ignored the "she thought" part. You seem to be more certain that it was Oswald than she was. Btw, I've always wondered how long it takes to catch a fleeting glimpse, but the number of words used to describe the experience is hardly a reliable indicator. The ostensible Oswald sighting isn't mentioned in the signed statement. Now what? You can save your sanctimonious BS. You loved the FBI report when it mentioned that (she thought) she caught a glimpse of Oswald. You even used it to pretend that the sighting was a lot more solid than it was. Vagaries of memory? The FBI report is dated 4 days after the event and the signed statement almost 4 months after. The remainder of your post is almost pure speculation and not worth commenting on.

I suspect that it comes from Gil Jesus. See the response to him that I posted in the Pat Speer interview thread a moment ago.

Oh my! Arnold told the FBI on 11/26/63 that she thought she saw a fleeting glimpse of Oswald through the front door when she was standing outside to view the motorcade. This was a few minutes before 12:15 per her estimate. She told the FBI a few months later that she left the building about 12:25 (without mentioning a possible Oswald sighting). That's one heck of a solid 12:25 sighting you've got there!

From Wikipedia: The memorandum is item 14 below. Index of /Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/J Disk/Justice Department of/Justice Department of JFK-King Reinvestigation

Why? Do you think Callaway picked Oswald because of anything Leavelle said?

Exactly. And the only reason to ask participants in a lineup about anything is (when relevant) to allow the witness to hear their speaking voices. There is no obligation to answer truthfully.

I didn't notice at the time that I was being spanked, or even tickled, but they're doing quite the victory dance over at the old newsgroup. I do have a few additional thoughts on the matter, but currently not the time or inclination to express them properly. Maybe in a few days.

What case? The case that you helped me make, by admitting that Oswald prior to 12:25 had not only plausible access but even legitimate, work-related reasons to make (unsupervised) visits to the sixth floor.

The whole world had access, you say, while flatly rejecting the notion that Oswald would've had access prior to 12:25, unless I can produce a timestamped photograph of him on the sixth floor with the rifle in his hands. I find that peculiar and not entirely reasonable. You'll have to forgive me if I failed to answer any of your questions. Would you care to repeat them?

Your point is moot if Oswald had access to the sixth floor prior to 12:25. Can you rule that out? Pointing out that we don't know when the rifle was assembled is not speculation. You're the one attempting to artificially narrow down the window of opportunity. Oswald feigning lack of interest? I said sixth floor, not building, but thank you for admitting that Oswald had access. How convenient. Thank you for admitting that Oswald had legitimate, work-related reasons to make unsupervised visits to the sixth floor at various times, including the morning hours of 11/22. I rest my case.

It seems you have a later version of the article. The afterthought on scope alignment is absent in my copy; otherwise I would certainly have included it in my quote.

I was actually relying on Griggs. From an article in the Dallas '63 newsletter (V1N3, 8/89) found on hood.edu:

Good post! Btw, Greg's question inspired me to respond to Gil's post without realizing that you had already covered the same ground above, so apologies for that.

But it doesn't matter how long it took if Oswald had access to the sixth floor prior to 12:25. What allows you to rule that out? When do you think the "sniper's nest" was constructed? But Zahm was talking about sighting in the rifle for the first time, not about needing to do it after each reassembly. It would probably have been ideal, but don't forget that the scope was directly attached to the receiver/barrel and wasn't among the parts that needed to be removed. It can't even be known if Oswald ever had the opportunity to properly sight in the rifle, or how much it would have helped, but it most certainly wasn't an option on 11/22. It's likely, however, that he switched to the iron sights upon realizing that the first shot was a complete miss. Which would tend to somewhat moot the argument that sighting in the rifle was an absolute requirement for success, don't you think? PS: I hadn't noticed DVP's reply to Greg where he makes similar observations, so apologies for the redundancy.

Paul Hoch devoted almost an entire issue (8 EOC 1) of his newsletter to Hurt's book. In case you haven't seen it before, you might find value in some of his insights.

I'd be surprised if Oswald didn't switch to the iron sights after the first shot. He probably also didn't struggle as much with the bolt action as Ventura did.

Thank you, but I probably learned it from a smarter guy.

Since at least 2012.

What Ben said.

What year Benavides' brother was killed is hardly trivial. When you're in the business of killing or intimidating witnesses, it usually makes the most sense to do it before they testify. Maybe it works differently in the US. Have you read Benavides' WC testimony? Did you find anything in there that might have irked the conspirators to the extent that hard measures needed to be taken? I didn't think so.

Blakey was only asking for information, but an answer might have had evidentiary value. Did he receive any? Where did the 2/64 date come from, if not from Penn Jones, for example via the CRS report? The father-in-law story is pretty remarkable, but it sounds like the police officer was offering sound advise. Btw, you're a Two Oswalds theorist. No offense intended, of course.

I'm sorry but Blakey was just following the recommendations in a CRS report citing Penn Jones as the source of the claim that Eddy was murdered in February of 1964. The CRS researcher was unable to find any mention of such a murder in the DMN between February 10th and 20th of that year. ANALYSIS OF REPORTS AND DATA BEARING ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEATH OF TWENTY-ONE INDIVIDUALS CONNECTED WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY it has been clear since at least 2010, when the late Jean Davison located the relevant article, that 1965 is the correct year. Jean Davison, alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup post, 4/3/2010 The Not-So-Mysterious Death of Eddie Benavides