Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD

[Alaric Rosman]

The time from Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD (12:33:30) to his arrest at the Texas Theatre (1:51) is 77½ minutes A period in which everybody’s behaviour was inexplicable to reason and baffling to experience.

I have great respect for Dale Myers’ "With Malice ". A good 75% of the facts for my 2005 DPUK Canterbury Seminar Presentation (“Did Tippit Stop Anybody?”) came from Mr Myers' research.

His book is an absolute 'must' for anybody who wants to understand the Tippit slaying. “With Malice” is an immensely impressive effort: well put together, clearly and concisely written, with excellent maps, and digitally enhanced photographs.. If this book doesn’t convince you of Oswald’s guilt, then nothing by any other author would do so. However, for all that it is a far from being an unblemished book.. Michael Grifffith has provided a very detailed critique (“Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?”: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g...ith_Malice.html and I have myself many criticisms additional to those of Mr Griffith.

But the book's failures --- well, nearly all of them --- fall under one heading: "With Malice" is dominated by a mind set so fixed on Oswald's guilt that evidence becomes emptied of its immanent value and coherence, and instead is judged transcendentally --- solely by whether it fits into the jigsaw of Oswald's guilt.

That the jigsaw of Oswald’s guilt has many well-placed pieces is unarguable --- the jacket evidence and the ballistic results, for example, are impressive --- but, for all that, there is still plenty of room for doubt, and nothing (including the jacket and ballistic coverage) is ironclad.

For example, I even very much doubt whether in fact Tippit did stop anybody, let alone confront Oswald. The certainty that Mr Myers searches for doesn't exist. Oswald may have killed Tippit --- but equally he may not have.

One thing I do feel, and that is that the official version (despite its excellent mediation by Mr Myers) is totally unconvincing, especially Oswald’s behaviour after leaving the Depository.

Mr. Myers is a wonderful singer, but it’s a poor sheet he sings from. I simply can't get any of the Dallas Police version into my head, nor can I reverse the attempt, and get my head into what the Dallas Police say happened. But of course the deficiency could be with me. If so, then I hope (and expect) that others will point it out.

There are 16 issues connected with Oswald’s movements and behaviour after the Assassination --- not to mention his gunning down of Tippit --- that completely blitz my mind.. If Mr Myers, or any mainstream student of the Assassination, can answer some of these questions --- no man could answer the lot --- I would consider revising my position.

As things are, my feeling is that from when Oswald leaves the Depository( 12:30:30) until he is arrested(1:51), we are dealing with 77½ minutes of madness in which neither Oswald’s behaviour nor that of the Dallas police is penetrable to reason or experience.

Well, anyway, here are the questions:- [Note ‘M’ as a reference refers to Dale Myers’ book]

If Oswald was entirely the lone assassin, if within the darkest recesses of his mind there cannot be heard even the whisper of a conspirator’s voice, then why did he leave the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD)?

Contrary to what Gerald Posner says the TSBD was not the scene of the crime; it was the 6th floor (and only the 6th floor) that was the scene of the Assassination.. Once Oswald had descended the stairs unobserved, and got to the 2nd floor coke machine, he was free. (Remember there were no witnesses to put him on the 6th floor at the time of the Assassination, let alone with a rifle.)

[i am putting on one side for the moment (see my later comments) such self-incriminating follies as alleged palm prints and the traceability of a mail-order (?!) rifle.]

It would surely have been in Oswald's interests to stay on in the building and to make a point of convincingly talking to as many people as possible. His hope would be that within a few weeks there would be a lot of people who would incorrectly believe that when Kennedy was shot, Lee Oswald was actually with them.

However by racing from the building, more or less immediately after the shots have rung out, Oswald was doing two dangerous things: he was, for a start, drawing attention to himself in a way, which however tenuously, could link him ---it would all be very hypothetical, of course --- to the assassination: certainly the police would be obliged to seek him immediately his absence was noted.

Secondly, by absenting himself without permission (and without telling anybody) --- and thereby displaying a most disdainful attitude towards his employers --- Oswald was possibly putting his job in jeopardy; almost certainly any promotion.

So why did he rush out of the TSBD? The official version --- what we asked to believe --- is that Oswald wanted to go to the movies! Well, according to Captain Will Fritz and Special Agent James B Bookhout that’s what Oswald told them (4H,211; WR 601, 613,619) and they accepted it. And --- at a wide stretch of a very wild imagination --- it could have been true. Oswald was something of a film fan (7H,318)!

So that answers our first question --- or does it? Somehow, I don’t think so.

(2) But Oswald, keen as he is to get to the local cinema, goes first to his rooming-house to pick up his pistol (and whilst about it he changes his shirt, and trousers), and then --- understandably, because he doesn't want to miss the main film --- he rushes out of the house. He has every reason to be in a hurry. The film he longs to see, “War is Hell”, will be screened in 17 minutes, and Oswald is faced with a 25 minute walk to get there (combine M, 363,514,617).

Question: why does Oswald need a pistol to go the cinema? The answer, in effect, that he gives Will Fritz (M 601; WR) is that, like most young men, he likes carrying a gun with him --- for no other reason! Incredibly --- we have Will Fritz's word for it ---Oswald gave no further answer. Acceptable?

(3) But --- in a nano second --- Oswald, on immediately rushing out of the house, changes his mind (possibly because he realizes he’ll miss the main feature). Suddenly he doesn't want to go the cinema. We know this sudden change of mind happens (that is, if we believe the official version of events) because Earlene Roberts, Oswald's acting landlady, sees him standing at a bus stop, to the right (north) of the house, which will take him in an opposite direction to the cinema.(7H, 439;Report Map 158, M360).

Why did Oswald in a split second change his mind?

(4) We next hear of Oswald --- official version --- when he is on Tenth Street, walking in an easterly direction. Tenth Street, like the movie house, is to the south of Oswald’s rooming house, but it lies eastwards, whereas the movie house is westwards. But this is amazing. At 1:03 Oswald is at a bus stop taking him away from Tenth Street So how then did Oswald get to Tenth Street --- and so quickly too, within 11 minutes (or 3 minutes, if we accept Mrs. Markham’s time keeping) --- if initially he got a bus in the wrong direction?

One suggestion has been that Oswald was not waiting for a bus, but waiting to cross the road. This solves the problem of bussing in the wrong direction, but raises another question. Crossing the road would be right for walking to the cinema, as the map shows, but if Oswald was planning to go the Texas Theatre, he firstly, would have turned left (not right) on leaving his rooming house, and then, secondly, have crossed the road. Turning right on leaving Mrs Roberts’ wouldn’t make sense.

A further point: if we put the movie house out of our mind (Oswald has decided to go later), and fix on East Tenth Street, then crossing the road wouldn’t make sense either, since that would imply that Oswald was going to West Tenth Street. We can conclude then that if it was Oswald’s intention to move eastwards on East Tenth Street, then he would never have crossed the road, and he would never have turned right on leaving his rooming house. [This is an awkward fact for certain Mafia conspiracists, for example, Jim Gatewood (in "Captain Will Fritz and the Dallas Mafia" (2004)). They argue that Oswald was going eastwards on East Street to meet Jack Ruby at his apartment. Oswald’s getaway was to be organized from there; Ruby’s apartment being 3 blocks east of where Tippit was killed. However although this intriguing hypothesis fully explains why Oswald was on East Tenth Street, it doesn't explain how he got there so quickly (within 3/11 minutes) if his original movement was to bus northwards.].

So again, how did Oswald get to East Tenth Street --- and why? No answer has yet been given.

One answer could be that having missed the 1:20 screening, he put off his visit until the second screening, and was going for a stroll to kill time, and ---unexpectedly --- Tippit!

(5) Oswald encounters Tippit on 10th street. But what's Tippit doing on Tenth Street.? Tippit's area was District # 78.. Tenth Street is District #91, so why was Tippit out of his area?

Myers' answer (P 43, 44, 45) was that Tippit's Dispatcher sent him there because, following the Assassination, all the patrol cars had been sent to Dealey Plaza, except two:#87 (Patrolman R.C.Nelson), and #78 (Patrolman J.D.Tippit). Because Central Oak Cliff had become emptied of patrol cars (all of them supposedly having gone to Dealey Plaza), Nelson and Tippit were asked to stay behind and patrol this central area. Thus on this view, Tippit was in #91 because it was one of the areas he was (unexpectedly) asked to patrol.

However, there are 4 difficulties:-

(i) Patrolman R.C. Nelson ---- no arguments about this, Myers admits it ---was known to have gone to Dealey Plaza, and not to have covered Central Oak cliff. Did Nelson disobey his instructions, or is it possible that he never received them? And if Nelson never received his instructions, could it be that they were never issued? From this point of view, it is disturbing to know (M, 45) that Nelson was unwilling to discuss the affair with Myers.

(ii) When 3 of Tippit’s supervisors, Calvin Owens (7H, 78), Tippit's sergeant supervisor on the fateful day, James Putnam (7H, 74) a sergeant whose job it was to supervise the radio patrol division, and C.E.Hulse (12H, 99), the senior radio dispatcher on Assassination day, gave their separate testimonies, each of them made it clear that he thought that Tippit must have proceeded to Tenth Street on his own initiative, following a general emergency alert for all cars in downtown Dallas to go to Elm & Houston The problem is that the call did not properly apply to Tippit, because# 78 was not a downtown district.

Reading their individual testimonies it becomes obvious that even 4 to 5 months after Tippit's death (let alone at the time things were happening), none of these supervisors knew of any specific instructions given to Tippit to move into Central Oak Cliff, and that they could --- in effect --- only guess as to why Tippit assigned to #78, was shot in #91.

(iii) About two weeks after the Assassination, and on the very first day that the Commission started its work (5th Dec.’63), the Dallas Police submitted the tapes of all the dispatcher calls associated with both deaths, Kennedy's and Tippit's. This original submission did not contain any instructions to Tippit to proceed to the Central Oak Cliff area.(4H,185/6).

However, 4/5 months after this original submission, on 22 April, '64,, Jesse Curry, as the Chief of Dallas Police, was called to give his testimony to the Commission, and in the course of doing so he brought along a new version of the dispatcher calls, one which included the Tippit instructions (4H, 185/6).

Amazing! 145 days after Tipipt's death, the instructions sending him into Central Oak Cliff (which none of Tippit's supervisory personnel knew existed) suddenly appear!

But where had the dispatcher calls been all that time? Why did it take 4/5 months to discover them? And why did none of Tippit’s hands-on-supervisors know about these instructions, either at the time they were issued, or even 145 days later? Why was each of one of his supervisors --- Owens, Putnam and Hulse --- allowed to appear before the Commission ignorant of the instructions (allegedly) given to Tippit, and because of this ignorance, were reduced to near floundering speculation when questioned on Tippit’s seemingly irregular movements?

(d) Myers tells us that because so many cars had been sent to Dealey Plaza from Oak Cliff that the central area of Oak Cliff was left uncovered in consequence, and that this lack of coverage explains why Tippit, along with Nelson, was sent into the central area.

But this is difficult to understand as it contradicts the original dispatcher instruction --- the one Tippit would have heard over his car radio ---- “Attention all squad cars in the downtown area, code 3 [full speed, red light and siren] to Elm Street & Houston, with caution.….” (7H, 81).

In other words, the Oak Cliff area was not being emptied of cars (the instruction applied only to downtown cars) and there was therefore no reason why Tippit should have been called away from #78. Myers inadvertently confirms this when he says (P 54) that there were other patrol cars within 2 miles of Tenth Street, and on page 115 that “within a few minutes dozens of police cars converged on the area of the Tippit shooting.”

(6) Why did Oswald feel threatened by Tippit's approaching police car? (I am assuming Myers' Directional Change Theory)

Oswald was doing nothing wrong. He was just walking along a sidewalk. Why should he be singled out? Anyway, Oswald was quick witted, highly articulate and assertive. Myers describes him as a "master of self control" (p208) Oswald could certainly have masterfully parried any interrogative swipes from a DP patrolman. So what had he to worry about?

And if Oswald was apprehensive of police cars (frightened of being stopped and searched?), then what was he doing carrying a revolver? And if Oswald was so frightened of police cars, where ever did he get the nerve to shoot President?

Surely shooting the Most Powerful Man in the World and then getting wobbly knees on seeing a police is like a Big Game hunter quailing at the approach of a Pekinese dog?

[but putting aside Myers' erroneous Change of Direction Theory, and returning to reality Oswald in fact would never have seen Tippit's police car until it overtook him and stopped in front of him].

(7) But why would Tippit have noticed Oswald? Oswald was:

(i) 6 years younger than the suspect, and

(ii) about 2 stones lighter, and, according to the original dispatcher tapes,

(iii) 3 inches taller than wanted man (Compare 7H, 81 and 21H, 398 with WR 614)

Moreover all Tippit would have seen of Oswald would have been his rear view.

Myers uses Directional Change Theory to explain Tippit's suspicions of Oswald, but, as I showed in my Presentation to the DPUK Canterbury Seminar in 2005, this theory is incorrect. Myers writes (p 354) of Oswald's noticeable "demeanor and suspicions actions", but, again, as I showed in my Presentation, none of this has any basis in fact.

And anyway, what questions could Tippit possibly ask Oswald? How do you interrogate a man whose only offence is just to walk along a sidewalk?

(8) Within the context of the official view, Oswald could have had no reason for shooting Tippit. We have discussed this earler (see 6). So if Oswald shot Tippit, then Oswald must have "flipped", and shot Tippit in blind panic. But here is a problem: Oswald when he left the killing scene --- as I showed in my Presentation --- didn't flee in a panic --- which is what would be expected considering he killed in a panic --- but in a comparatively slow, 'leisured' way, without the slightest sign of fear.

How can this difference ( between blind panic and iron coolness) be reconciled?

(9) Myers tells us that Oswald felt severely threatened by police cars. He comments (p 363) that Oswald seemed to have taken 20 minutes to move from Tenth Street to the movie house --- normally a ten minute walk.

Myers attributes slowness this to Oswald fleeing from main roads to alleyways and side streets, in order to avoid all the hustle and bustle around him: Oswald, says Myers, is trying to avoid the lawmen who have poured into the area (mostly concentrated on Tenth Street) and the siren-shrieking police cars.

Later. Oswald encountered a stream of police cars on Jefferson Boulevard. Johnny Brewer, a manager of a shoe shop very near the cinema, notices both Oswald and the siren-blasting police cars. He sees that Oswald looks nervous and disheveled, and he associates this with the passing police cars. But why?

A police car with its siren on tells everybody four things: (i) the police car has a destination in view; (ii) it is in an extreme hurry to get there; (iii) the car's driver puts more emphasis on quick arrival than on surprise and (iv), in consequence of these three factors, that neither the driver (nor any one of the other occupants of the car) is interested on what's going on in any of the sidewalks they speed by. And the reason is obvious: at 75 mph, the 60 yards separation between Johnny Brewer’s shoe shop (Hardy’s Shoe Store) and the Texas Theatre (M 141), can be covered in 1.7 seconds. No time for noticing anything!

Oswald was sensible enough to know this. He should in fact have been reassured by the fast moving police cars: if they were passing through an area, they would obviously not be concerned with anything in the area.

So why was the "calculating" Oswald (M 359), the" master of self control" (M 208) so frightened? The story, as it’s told, simply doesn’t make sense.

And, for the same reasons, just to recover the same ground for emphasis, why did both Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal think that police cars speedily passing through Jefferson Boulevard were trailing Oswald in Jefferson Boulevard? (M, 144,158) Again, the story doesn’t make sense.

(10) If Oswald was so frightened of police cars, what was he doing carrying the very revolver with which he had shot Tippit --- the one and only thing that could incriminate him? Oswald’s behaviour is completely senseless.

(11) Oswald, we are told, in the heat of his getaway, discarded his jacket. This would have created a problem for him, especially when it came to concealing his revolver. A revolver tucked into his belted trousers, but under his shirt, would have been conspicuous by its bulge. To avoid this, he would have had to wear his shirt outside his trousers.

But Oswald didn’t wear his shirt outside his trousers. Pictures of him taken on his arrival at City Hall, immediately after his arrest, show his shirt firmly in his trousers --- a tight fitting shirt (judging by photographs) --- and as Oswald was rushed at full speed from the cinema to a police car, it is very difficult to believe that there would have been time (or that anybody would have had the inclination) to tuck in his shirt!. Indeed, the picture Myers has (P 401) of Oswald being pushed into the rear seat of a police car, shows that his shirt, in the struggle, had been nearly wrenched from him.

Moreover, had Oswald been wearing his shirt outside trousers, this would have been a very distinguishing feature. Surely, then, Johnny Brewer, in describing the suspicious man to a member of the cinema staff (M, 144) would not have restricted his description to "wearing a brown shirt", but would have added the most distinguishing feature "outside his trousers".

.

(12) If Oswald was not wearing his shirt outside his trousers, why didn't Johnny Brewer notice the strange bulge in Oswald's waist band --- and deduce what it was?

Actually, there is a big problem here. Johnny Brewer claimed that, unlike Julia Postal, who knew only of Kennedy's death, that he also knew of Tippit's murder (M 141), that is, he knew that 25 minutes ago, 6 blocks away (M 141), a policeman had been gunned to his death.

Johnny Brewer noticed that Oswald's hair seemed sort of "messed up" (M, 141); that he was “walking a little faster than usual" (M, 142), and looked as if he had been running (M, 141); in addition, Oswald looked “scared”, and “funny” (M, 141).

Brewer also described Oswald's shirt as a brown sports one, and recalled that "his shirt tail was out" (M 141, 142), an observation which implies that the rest of his shirt --- the front, for example, the bit covering the gun --- was tucked in.

But, despite the fact that through the news of the President's death, and then through the news of the murdered Tippit, Brewer had been alerted to Oswald as a suspicious persons, and claimed to have frisked him visually, Brewer never noticed that Oswald was concealing, within a tight-fitting shirt, a handgun. It is scarcely conceivable, given the context of his suspicions, that Brewer never looked.

So the question must obviously be, if Oswald was stupid enough to carry a gun into the movie house, why did neither Johnny Brewer nor Julia Postal notice it? Could it be that Oswald was never carrying one?

(13) About that jacket: if the police were so confident that it really was Oswald's (the one he as wearing when he shot Tippit, and the one he made his get away in ), then why didn't they make him wear it at his line-up? Also the very famous colour custody- photograph of Oswald (M, 394) shows him clad above the waist in only his vest: why wasn’t the photograph taken with Oswald wearing his reddish brown “pepper and salt” shirt (WR 615) --- the one he is alleged to have shot Tippit in --- plus the discarded jacket? People would then know what the allegedly fleeing Oswald looked like --- and whether the jacket actually fitted him.

(14) Police cars going up and down Jefferson Boulevard, but we are never told why. Where were they going? Why the sirens? Were they following 'leads'?

Then suddenly, amongst all this siren screeching of police cars, something happens. At 1:42 (27 minutes after the police time for Tippit's death), Julia Postal phones Dallas Police Headquarters:

"I know you men are very busy, but I have a man in the theatre that is running from you for some reason...... (M, 158)" She answers a few standard questions, and gives a description of the man.

5 minutes later, most of the police in Oak Cliff --- one witness counted 20 to 30 "frenzied" officers---are at the movie house.( M, 146 386, 387). They are very heavily armed: "rifles, pistols --- you name it ---", said the same witness (M, 146). Actually there were 15 of them (M, 556) --- it’s just that they seemed more --- by the excited way they behaved! And in addition to rifles, one or two had shotguns, according to Julia Postal (M,554).

But what on earth is going on here?

The lead from Julia Postal was very insubstantial and vague. Obviously the police had to act on it, but their response was out of all proportion to the lead as received by them.

All the police knew was that a young man had entered the Texas Theatre and hadn't paid for his ticket, and that this man acted 'suspiciously' in that he appeared to be entering the cinema, not in a relaxed way, with the intention of enjoying the film, but in a very fraught way, as if trying to avoid something (or some one) outside the theatre.

Now, so far as the police were concerned, this could have been a very sound perception, or, alternatively, it could have been a very mistaken one, an aberration of observation and deduction induced by the very excited and fearful atmosphere of the Assassination.

And yet as soon as the lead (sound or aberrational) was received, it became transformed from just one lead among many (think of all those police cars racing --- chasing leads? --- along Jefferson Boulevard) into the lead.

After Oswald is arrested, we never hear of any more leads. His guilt is never in doubt (M 178,179, 180). And this transformation --- from a lead into the lead --- happened immediately. But how? We are never told. Strangely the question is never asked.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Alaric Rosman

[Alaric Rosman]

Let's look more deeply into this mystery.

The suspect's alleged suspicious behaviour, for all the police knew at the time, could have been because he was mute and mentally subnormal. The lead could have been a totally dry run.

Moreover the police as they entered the Texas Theatre had no grounds whatsoever for forcefully questioning the 'suspect' --- at the most they could in fairness do no more than politely check him out; certainly not arrest him. After all, the suspect had caused no disturbance outside the cinema (other than looking and behaving 'oddly'), and caused no disturbance within it.

What 'saved' the police from utter humiliation. was that the suspect was carrying a revolver (as has been said, strange that neither Julia Postal nor Johnny Brewer had noticed it).

(Had the suspect not been armed, the police would have been made to look wild, bullying and idiotic. And it's difficult to believe that the police would have behaved in such a ludicrously ostentatious fashion unless they knew in advance --- if they were as certain as they could be --- that the suspect would be armed. In this connection, the Dallas Police seem to have had a double standard. Consider this WC Testimony from Walker, the third Dallas Policeman to arrive at the Tippit scene:-

Mr. BELIN. Why do you think he stopped this man?

Mr. WALKER. I believe that the description given on the radio, that he probably stopped just to check him out as a general procedure, as we do.

Mr. BELIN. Well, if he stopped him for that reason, this man, he would have stopped him because the man was a suspect for perhaps the assassination, why wouldn't he have had his gun out when he stopped him?

Mr. WALKER. Well, there are a lot of people of that description, and it is just not police practice to pull your gun on a person because he fits the description of someone, unless you are positive almost that it is the suspect. You just don't do it. (7H,42)

Oh, yes you do! The police did precisely that at the Texas Theatre. 15 of them. Rifles, pistols, shotguns. There is an alternative explanation of course. Though police may not have known of themselves that the suspect would be armed, they may have known that the suspect was a 'Lee Harvey Oswald', someone, so they may have been told, who was either deeply connected with the assassination, or who was (possibly for reasons of state security) to be framed for it.

In this circumstance the police would have known that the suspect was going to be armed --- because they were --- in the spirit of their instructions --- going to arm him.! The revolver being, of course, a plant.

One thing is certain: the police story as Mr Myers relates it simply doesn't at any stage hold water..

15) Oswald's pursuers ---remember we are taking the official point of view --- lose sight of him at the Texaco service station. Three questions arise:

(i) If Oswald had shaken off his pursuers, then he was ---for the moment--- free; so why didn't he continue do what Myers (p 363) claims that he had been doing all along: travelling by sidestreets and alleyways --- that's presumably how he escaped his pursuers --- until he got back to his rooming- house? Instead Oswald goes to the cinema.

What was the point of going to the cinema?. Of course the Texas Theatre had its advantages --- hours of quiet under the cover of darkness, etc.--- but as Myers observes (M, 363) “returning to the heavily traveled boulevard was extremely risky". And there was nothing in terms of seclusion that that his rooming- house couldn’t have given him. Why was Oswald so obsessed with going to the movies?

[Wickedly, one could comment that it was strange that Oswald, who at the last minute declined the 1.20 showing, on the grounds that he would arrive (say) 8 minutes late, eventually turns up to see War is Hell at 1:40 ( 20 minutes into the film). Surely, it would be better, if Oswald, on leaving his rooming-house had crossed the road, turned left again --- and gone straight to the cinema, and not bothered with East Street and Tippit.]

(ii) Why did Oswald throw away his jacket? Admittedly the jacket was a distinguishing feature, but he had, for the time being, escaped his pursuers ,so why worry about changing his appearance? Anyway it was a very common type of jacket; amongst crowds of people, and within a few days, it would be much less of a noticeable item. He should have had other priorities

Keeping the jacket would have two advantages: firstly, it was, as I’ve said above, a good cover for his revolver; secondly, if Oswald was not going to return to his rooming-house, then possibly he might be out late at night, when, at that time of the year the nights got very cold.

(iii) At this stage, with his pursuers out run, why didn't Oswald get rid of his gun? If he hadn't had his gun on him in the movie house, the police could never .have arrested him What an idiot the official version makes him! And this why I cannot believe that the official view tells us anything like the truth.

And in this connection, Myers' soundness is highly questionable. He writes: "With Tippit dead in the street, Oswald quickly reloaded his revolver, a sure sign he anticipated similar encounters with law enforcement." (p 355)

It is difficult to believe that this is the true situation. The point that Myers finds difficult to accept is that if Oswald was the sole killer of Kennedy in every way: the sole designer and executor of his death, then (as I've said before), once Oswald had left the 6th floor undetected, what had he to fear? Being a solitary assassin, he would have nobody to betray him to the police, so why should he be frightened of them? The Tippit encounter was inexplicable; its multiplication would have been baffling beyond comprehension. Instead of arming himself, Oswald should have disarmed. As a lone assassin, his failure to do doesn't make sense.

[i am putting aside, as I've said before, the alleged palm prints, and all the mail order rifle because if Oswald were the sole assassin he would never have gone about things in such an absurdly self-incriminating way. The Assassination was not an impulsive affair --- it could not have been an atrocity committed, as it were on the spur of the moment, because if the official view is correct Oswald had to re-assemble his disassembled Mannlicher Carcano in a few minutes. The re-assembly of such a gun would involve total accuracy in a 17- stage process (http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~gliberal/carcano/general.html), something, which though not inherently difficult, would require plenty of practice --- and that points to planning.]

(16) We seem geographically and psychologically to be dealing with two Oswalds. Geographically Oswald always seems to be walking away from where he ends up. He is seen orientating himself northwards along Beckley (by bus?) and ends up southwards along East Tenth Street; moving eastwards along East Tenth Street, he ends southwestwards at Jefferson Boulevard. It seems as if we are dealing with two people.

But the confusion psychologically is far greater. First we have the Assassination itself: clearly an act of derring-do, with so many things that could have gone wrong. The Oswald of the Assassination is a “chancer” of cast iron nerves. Secondly, we have the shooting of Tippit: an act of utter, spontaneous reactive panic. Thirdly, we have the getaway: an act of nonchalant calm, ironclad Oswald; then we have the nervous wreck outside the cinema, and then we have, at the point of arrest, and under sharp interrogation, the Oswald with nerves of steel. Clearly two people here.

Conclusion

Myers --- in an unguarded moment? --- has written:

"... it is important to recognize what is clear. Oswald's actions after the assassination suggest some desperate purpose. The ride on the bus, the change to a taxi, the quick stop at his rooming house to grab his pistol: all seem focused toward some obscure goal." (p 363)

I would disagree with the "focused". As I have argued, Oswald's behaviour seems all over the place, and he always seems to be moving in two directions at once. But I agree with the "desperate purpose", and I wholeheartedly agree with the word “obscure”.

My contention is that if Oswald were the sole assassin, or, come to think of it, even if he were just part of a conspiracy whose purpose had no extension beyond the killing of the President, he would not have left he building. I have argued this point in my opening paragraphs, so I have no need to argue the matter further. Once Oswald had got to the coke machine, as I've said so often, he was (or should have been) home and dry.

I can see only 3 reasons why Oswald would have left the TBD so quickly:

(1) He was involved in a conspiracy whose purposes went beyond the killing of the President. The death of Kennedy, on this view, was just the initial event of a far greater happening, which, in order to come to fruition, would require some very prompt --- and of course, pre-arranged --- action by Oswald.

Quite what this event could be, or what Oswald's part in it would be, boggles the imagination. But the idea has some explanatory power.

The next two ideas seem more realistic, having more explanatory than the first idea, since both explain why Oswald, when outside the cinema, would have looked very apprehensive.

Briefly, what these next two ideas have in common --- it all seems very surprising at first --- is that Kennedy's death meant to Oswald that something had gone horribly wrong.

There are two ways in which this could happen:

(i) Oswald was conned by rogue CIA agents into believing that President Kennedy, keen to invade Cuba (to retrieve his loss of face over the Bay of Pigs), and desperate for a justification for such an action, sanctioned a plan whereby an unsuccessful assassination attempt on him could be trailed through Oswald back to Castro. Oswald's role was to be a 'Communist' plant with appropriate Moscow baggage to whom the assassination rifle could be traced. A bit more complicated this one. Some rogue FBI agents (Mafia friendly) could have made out to Oswald that they had for some time suspected a plot to kill Kennedy. Oswald, because of his past intelligence work, could have been conned into thinking that he was to infiltrate the group and to feed back information. This Oswald may have done consistently and accurately. The group could have been directed by pro-Castroists operating through FBI/Mafia contacts. Not impossible. On September 7th, '63 Castro had issued a veiled warning to Kennedy: "if the American leaders persist in their terrorist attacks upon the lives of the American leaders, they themselves would not be safe." (Michael Kurtz, "The Crime of The Century", 2nd edt.,'93, xlix )

Castro was convinced that since the summer of 1960, the CIA had been instigating assassinations attempts on him. Possibly working through some specially selected Mafia members --- ‘privileged’ Mafiosi through whom he did drug deals --- Castro could have decided to get Kennedy before Kennedy got him, and these rogue FBI members may have told Oswald that the FBI had got wind of it. Oswald may well have been chosen to “infiltrate” such a group; his selection for the task could have seemed reasonable to him because of his successfully manufactured Communist past and because he had something of a genuine Mafia backround, largely through his Mafia uncle, Charles Murret. [Oswald was born in the crime-ridden section of the French Quarters of New Orleans: his childhood was sent in a Mafia controlled area of bars, strip joints, gambling house.

In this area he often lived with hs mother's sister and her husband Charles "Dutz" Murret, who helpde run an illegal gambling network for Carlos Marcello.

Charles Murret kept in close touch with Oswald throughout Lee's entire life. He visited Lee when he was in prison following his arrrest over the Free Cuba leaflet fracas, and stayed with him immediately after his return from the Soviet Union. And he kept in touch with Lee whilst he(Lee) was in the marines and the Soviet Union. “The Mafia Killed President Kennedy”, David Scheim, WH Allen, ’88, P 43]

Oswald would then have had, through his uncle, ready contact with key Mafia elements. However, although intelligent, Oswald was through inexperience and its accompanying uncritical eagerness, very open to being conned.

He may well have thought he was working for the FBI when in fact he was feeding back to corrupt, Mafia friendly FBI and CIA agents.

The process of information gathering, the collation of all Oswald's feedback, may well have been surreptitiously organized by the conspirators themselves in order to set Oswald up as a Patsy.

Oswald, of course, would have been convinced that his activities were designed to thwart an assassination, that he was therefore, through his supposedly FBI directed activities, making a substantive input into preserving Kennedy's life.

It is easy to see how Oswald would have been so shattered by Kennedy's death if either of these last two scenarios were true: in (ii), Oswald would have expected to hear rifle fire, but for Kennedy ---narrowly (but deliberately) --- to escape; in (iii) there would be no rifle fire at all.

Oswald, which ever scenario it was, would have realized immediately that either, inexplicably, something at the last minute had gone Horribly Wrong, or that he was involved in a vast web of deception, betrayal and murder. Moreover, he would have realized that, if the latter was true, that he knew too much.

My submission is that Oswald's behaviour after the Assassination --- the pursuit of the "desperate purpose" to which Myers refers ---best explained by the fact that Kennedy's death meant for Oswald that something had gone Horribly Wrong, possibly as in scenario (ii) or (iii).

How does the death of Tippit fit into the Assassination? Quite possibly, not all. As I have argued in my Presentation, Tippit's death seems very much the work of a hitman. It was the Dallas Police who linked the two, and this linkage was later politically exploited by President Johnson. Possibly --- I think its very likely --- the Dallas Police genuinely believed that the slayer of Tippit was the also the Presidential assassin .But I don't believe the Dallas Police had anything like a free hand.

There were those --- very likely President Johnson was the driving force ---who feared the supposed consequences of an openly discovered conspiracy:

if an internal plot, such a disclosure would have devastatingly de-stabilizing consequences,

or,

if the plotters (and their backers) came from another country (Cuba being the most cited example), public awareness could lead swiftly to war, possibly even a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union.

It is easy to see then how President Johnson, if he accepted such a conspiracy view, would, through the FBI, have imposed on the Dallas Police the full force of his Presidential Office to get them to nail Oswald as the lone assassin, hammering home to them that it was a matter of national security which overrode any of the niceties of police procedure.

Most likely it was the FBI who tipped off the Dallas Police about the Texas Theatre.. The only possible reason that Oswald would have gone to the movies would have been to meet somebody.

[in this connection, note the evidence given by Jack Davis (18 at the time of the incident) to Jim Marrs ("Crossfire", p 353) that the man arrested in the movie house sat next to him (strange in a sparsely attended 900-seater theatre), and then frequently changed his seat, on each occasion sitting next to somebody, giving the imresson that he was trying to locate a contact. This supports the idea that Oswald went to theatre to meet somebody].

The following quotations may illuminate some of the foregoing text:-

(i) Detective Jim Leavelle on interrogating Oswald: “He was calm, talked in a natural manner, and was generally very cool in the situation he found himself in. I thought he was a lot cooler than anyone should have been in a similar situation --- a lot cooler than I would have been.” (Interviewed by Myers, P 599)

(ii) Will Fritz, on interrogating Oswald:

Mr Dulles: What was Oswald's attitude toward the police and police authority?

Mr Fritz: You know I didn't have trouble with him. If we would just talk to him quietly like we are talking right now, we talked all right until I asked him a question that meant something, that would produce evidence he immediately told me that he wouldn't tell me about it and he seemed to anticipate what I was going to ask. In fact, he got so good at it one time, I asked him if he had any training, if he hadn't been questioned before." (4H, 214) [Myers quotes this, but omits,as most people do, the last sentence.]

(iii) During the spring of 1962, Kennedy's light reading would include a novel by Fletcher Knebal and Charles Bailey, “Seven Days in May” (available at the time of writing on the internet) in which military leaders engineer a coup against a President who seems to them too pacifistic. Asked by a friend whether something of the sort could actually happen, Kennedy said he thought it could." (Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power, 93, p 305.)

(iv) "Biographer Evan Thomas concluded that Bobby [Kennedy] "gave lipservice to the single-gunman explanation" in the government's official report on the assassination, but "he never quieted his own doubts." Bobby, according to Thomas, thought the killing might have been the work of the CIA or mobster Sam Giancana or Castro or Jimmy Hoffa or Cuban exiles.

Lyndon Johnson shared the conviction that an undetected conspiracy was behind Kennedy's assassination: "President Kennedy tried to get Castro, but Castro got Kennedy first.", he told Joseph Califano, his domestic affairs chief.

To overcome Georgia Senator Richard Russell’s resistance to joining the Commission, Johnson warned him that forty million Americans might loose their lives in a nuclear conflict if accusations about Kennedy and Castro were not refuted”

(John F. Kennedy: “An Unfinished Life,” Robert Dallek, Allen Lane,’03, ps 698/9)

[Tim Gratz]

Mr. Rosman wrote:

Oswald was conned by rogue CIA agents into believing that President Kennedy, keen to invade Cuba (to retrieve his loss of face over the Bay of Pigs), and desperate for a justification for such an action, sanctioned a plan whereby an unsuccessful assassination attempt on him could be trailed through Oswald back to Castro. Oswald's role was to be a 'Communist' plant with appropriate Moscow baggage to whom the assassination rifle could be traced.

I have suggested that Oswald may have been talked into helping incriminate himself because of a deliberately failed assassination attemot. This scenario resolves a lot of questions. But there are several possibilities in addition to the one mentioned above, e.g.:

(1) There actually was a failed assassination plot planned by the CIA (not rogue agents) with the actual purpose to justify an invasion of Cuba. But a sinister element (certainly the OC comes to mind) could have hijacked the plot changing a failed assassination into an actual one.

(2) There was an actual assassination planned but Oswald was conned into thinking it was planned to fail. But why would the planners need to be rogue CIA agents? If a sinister element (again I offer OC) was aware that Oswald was working with US intelligence, why could Oswald not have been told that someone was from the CIA even though he was not? Oswald could have been instructed that the plan was so compartmentalized and so secret that he must tell no one even his normal handlers.

I tend to favor (1) above. This could explain the presence of CIA agents in Dallas while their presence would have been sufficient to necessitate a desperate cover-up. Planning a failed assassination attempt is not so far-fetched when one considers the plans contemplated by Operation Northwoods.

So it seems we have either an actual assassination attempt communicated to Oswald as designed to fail, with the plotters being rogue CIA operatives or others claiming to be CIA; or an officially sanctioned simulated assassination hijacked by the forces of darkness. Either of these scenarios could explain a lot and certainly explains Oswald's actions when he discovered that he was being set uo to take the blame for the death of the president. I suggest it could it also explain a wild shot designed to miss everyone and hurt no one but that resulted in a ricochet that wounded Mr. Tague.

[Duke Lane]

... Once Oswald had descended the stairs unobserved, and got to the 2nd floor coke machine, he was free. (Remember there were no witnesses to put him on the 6th floor at the time of the Assassination, let alone with a rifle.) ...

Alaric, I haven't a lot of time at the moment to respond to your lengthy post, however I did want to make comment on the above.

Oswald didn't descend to the 2nd floor from the 6th unobserved because if he had descended from the 6th floor, he would've been observed, no question about it.

Moreover, there was at least one witness on the 6th floor who would've seen Oswald there if Oswald had been there. That the witness didn't testify to having seen Oswald - given that the witness was on that floor until about 12:28, likely standing just west of the "sniper's nest" - further underscores the fact that Oswald wasn't there.

I'm going to state these two things as fact based on a close study I've recently done - but have not yet completed - that's in three parts: "The Great Elevator Shuffle, the Three Blind Mice, and the Invisible Man."

The results will surprise you ... just as they surprised me! I didn't set out to support a position, but merely to document events based on the testimonies of those who were on the premises. Only the last part - "The Invisible Man" - is speculation, and that only because there's nothing to document it with ... but given the prior documentation, they are reasonable conclusions.

Parts I and II are finished; Part III is not even started.

I have to agree with you that Dale's book will leave anyone convinced of LHO's guilt ... in much the same manner that Posner's did. It's all in the telling, after all.

[Thomas Graves]

[...] (I)f (Oswald) had descended from the 6th floor, he would've been observed, no question about it. [...]

______________________________________

Duke,

By whom?

Thanks,

--Thomas

______________________________________

Edited March 19, 2008 by Thomas Graves

[Duke Lane]

[...] (I)f (Oswald) had descended from the 6th floor, he would've been observed, no question about it. [...]

By whom?

Thomas, read the testimonies, then YOU tell ME. It's pretty self-evident if you do. Who was where and when? Follow the trail, all pre-coneptions aside. This is NOT new information. I remember discussing this on CompuServe in the early '90s. It's only a question if anyone READ what was recorded by all the sources who knew about it.

A little help: Bonnie Ray Williams, Hank Norman, Junior Jarman, Bill Shelley, Danny Arce, Billy Lovelady, Jack Dougherty, Buell Wesley Frazier, Roy Truly, Troy West, Eddie Piper, and everyone else they mentioned who was recorded.

I will post an analysis of all of this in the next few months, I'm just terribly busy right now with other priorities. If you ask nicely and promise non-disclosure, I can maybe send you Parts I and II, "The Great Elevator Shuffle" and "The Three Blind Mice." Part III, "The Invisible Man," is fairly concensual in nature: let's see what YOU think before I begin writing that.

Someone here recently quoted Bugliosi as having called this case a "bottomless pit" with more questions than answers ... some 1000+ pages into a 1500-page tome. There are twice as many details you can forget as there are that you might remember. One of those is that there were four - not just three - men on the fifth floor when the shots were fired.

Two of them knew with absolute certainty who was firing those shots. It's independently on record. Does that make it a fact?

[Duke Lane]

It's also a FACT that the question we're addressing is but a micro-microcosm of what Alaric posted points about, and which I've yet to read in its entirety. If we want to pursue the issue I'd raised separately, let's do on another thread. I really only wanted to hear Alaric's response to that one challenge ....

[Don Jeffries]

Alaric,

I am skeptical about all of Oswald's alleged post-assassination actions.

Dale Myers was posting regularly for a brief period of time a few years back on another forum. I found him to be completely full of himself, arrogant and unwilling to address other posters with anything other than "buy my book." I kept trying to pin him down on a very simple point; how did he determine what time Oswald left the TSBD? As I pointed out, the Warren Commission just picked 12:33 out of the air, with absolutely no evidence, not even the kind of laughable witnesses they used to buttress their other ridiculous conclusions. He refused to answer me, because he couldn't.

The truth is, we have no idea what time Oswald really left the TSBD. His alleged post-assassination journey makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of what his role was. Lone nut or Patsy, no one walks away from the scene of a crime he's just commited, then takes a bus back towards it moments later, then gets off the bus and hails a taxi back in the opposite direction again, only to have the driver drop him off past his rooming house, so he will have to unnecessarily walk back to it.

Everything about the official story of Oswald's post-shooting movements is unbelievable. Every witness he supposedly encountered was absurd and would have been torn to shreds on cross examination by a competent public defender. One of the most absurd, William Whaley, even acknowledged this during his side-splitting testimony before the Warren Commission. Whaley, Mary Bledsoe, Cecil McWatters and Helen Markham are hardly an impressive array of witnesses. The fact is that authorities had identical reports, independent of each other, from Deputy Roger Craig, Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper, who all reported seeing a man resembling Oswald run down the grassy slope in front of the TSBD and enter a Rambler station wagon, just moments after shots were fired. This was a solid lead, but the authorities never followed it, because they weren't interested in investigating anything. These reports represent the best evidence, and really the only evidence, that exists regarding Oswald's possible exit from the TSBD.

When we try to analyize what happened immediately after the assassination, and whether or not Oswald could have shot Tippit, we are asked to trust a group of uncredible witnesses, as well as Captain Fritz's "notes" from all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. I don't think any of the witnesses are believable, and I don't think the official story of what Oswald is supposed to have done during that time is believable. I also don't trust the veracity of Fritz's "notes." For instance, why would Oswald (or anyone, for that matter) have answered the question about getting his gun from his rooming house with the ridiculous reply "you know how boys are, they get their gun." Huh? This is the response from the disgusted prisoner was was persisently maintaining his innocence every chance he got? Sorry, I cannot believe that Oswald said anything like that.

We are also asked to believe that the president of the Dallas Bar Association, Louis Nichols, was satisifed that Oswald was not being denied representation, after visiting him in jail. Huh? That's just about all Oswald was talking about, during his brief snippets before the cameras. It is simply incomprehensible to me that the same figure who was complaiing constantly about "being denied legal representation" and requesting that "someone come forward to give me legal assistance" could possibly have told Nichols that everything was fine.

I am skeptical about everything Oswald is alleged to have done on November 22, 1963. This includes whether he carried anything into the TSBD that morning ("curtain rods" or lunch), whether he was standing in the doorway of the TSBD during the shooting (now generally accepted to be Lovelady, in the famous Altgens photo), or whether he even encountered Roy Truly and Marion Baker in the second floor lunchroom (I've never undestood why Baker found anything suspcious about this one guy, who was buying a soda, when there were plenty of other people still inside the building).

[Greg Parker]

Alaric,

I am skeptical about all of Oswald's alleged post-assassination actions.

Dale Myers was posting regularly for a brief period of time a few years back on another forum. I found him to be completely full of himself, arrogant and unwilling to address other posters with anything other than "buy my book." I kept trying to pin him down on a very simple point; how did he determine what time Oswald left the TSBD? As I pointed out, the Warren Commission just picked 12:33 out of the air, with absolutely no evidence, not even the kind of laughable witnesses they used to buttress their other ridiculous conclusions. He refused to answer me, because he couldn't.

I'd presume their timing worked backwards from the bus. Not that I believe the bus story. It seems to me, the youth who laughed about the assassination was assumed very soon after, to be the assassin. Wade even claimed this had been Oswald in a press conference. McWatters certainly seemed to think he'd been brought to the line-up to view the youth (who's name always eludes me). Possibly having made that erroneous assumption about who the passenger was, and discovering the mistake, they decided to put Oswald on the bus, anyway. Wade had also said at some stage that they were looking for the driver of the Rambler. The point where they decided to drop that inquiry and go with the bus may coincide with the orders to make this a "lone nut" job.

The truth is, we have no idea what time Oswald really left the TSBD. His alleged post-assassination journey makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of what his role was. Lone nut or Patsy, no one walks away from the scene of a crime he's just commited, then takes a bus back towards it moments later, then gets off the bus and hails a taxi back in the opposite direction again, only to have the driver drop him off past his rooming house, so he will have to unnecessarily walk back to it.

Everything about the official story of Oswald's post-shooting movements is unbelievable. Every witness he supposedly encountered was absurd and would have been torn to shreds on cross examination by a competent public defender. One of the most absurd, William Whaley, even acknowledged this during his side-splitting testimony before the Warren Commission. Whaley, Mary Bledsoe, Cecil McWatters and Helen Markham are hardly an impressive array of witnesses. The fact is that authorities had identical reports, independent of each other, from Deputy Roger Craig, Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper, who all reported seeing a man resembling Oswald run down the grassy slope in front of the TSBD and enter a Rambler station wagon, just moments after shots were fired. This was a solid lead, but the authorities never followed it, because they weren't interested in investigating anything. These reports represent the best evidence, and really the only evidence, that exists regarding Oswald's possible exit from the TSBD.

When we try to analyize what happened immediately after the assassination, and whether or not Oswald could have shot Tippit, we are asked to trust a group of uncredible witnesses, as well as Captain Fritz's "notes" from all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. I don't think any of the witnesses are believable, and I don't think the official story of what Oswald is supposed to have done during that time is believable. I also don't trust the veracity of Fritz's "notes." For instance, why would Oswald (or anyone, for that matter) have answered the question about getting his gun from his rooming house with the ridiculous reply "you know how boys are, they get their gun." Huh? This is the response from the disgusted prisoner was was persisently maintaining his innocence every chance he got? Sorry, I cannot believe that Oswald said anything like that.

I'll preface this by agreeing with Alaric; on balance, I don't believe Oswald carried a gun into the TT - a subject I've posted on previously. However, I have to say that what Oswald allegedly said to Fritz is completely congruent with what Ruth Anne Kloepfer told me a few years back. In answer to her question on what business he had in Washington, Oswald had apparently replied he was buying a gun. When asked why he wanted a gun, replied "You gotta have a gun". Without digging the interview out, I think he may have even stated the main reason he left Russia was inability to own a rifle.

We are also asked to believe that the president of the Dallas Bar Association, Louis Nichols, was satisifed that Oswald was not being denied representation, after visiting him in jail. Huh? That's just about all Oswald was talking about, during his brief snippets before the cameras. It is simply incomprehensible to me that the same figure who was complaiing constantly about "being denied legal representation" and requesting that "someone come forward to give me legal assistance" could possibly have told Nichols that everything was fine.

Nichols represented the Dallas status quo. His "impromptu" press conference straight after his brief talk with Oswald was reprehensible by normal lawyerly standards, and quite possibly done conspiratorially for the purpose of ensuring no one was going to come forward before Oswald could be taken care of.

Nichols, at best, was acting like the rest of the status quo in Dallas, and therefore can be at least partly forgiven. A snake after all, can only act like a snake.

The greater anger and suspicion should be cast upon the role of the Dallas Civil Rights Union that night.

I am skeptical about everything Oswald is alleged to have done on November 22, 1963. This includes whether he carried anything into the TSBD that morning ("curtain rods" or lunch), whether he was standing in the doorway of the TSBD during the shooting (now generally accepted to be Lovelady, in the famous Altgens photo), or whether he even encountered Roy Truly and Marion Baker in the second floor lunchroom (I've never undestood why Baker found anything suspcious about this one guy, who was buying a soda, when there were plenty of other people still inside the building).

That Baker/Truly/Oswald thing is pure, unadulterated bunk. Glad you are skeptical of it. Unfortunately, the image has so permeated the mass consciousness, trying to discuss it, is sometimes like trying to convert religious zealots to atheism with science. You may as well beat your head against a brick wall. And the latter will actually feel better!

[Ed O'Hagan]

Officer M.L. Baker's testimony to the Warren Commission may be reviewed by clicking on

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm

Notice that when he turned the corner at Main onto Houston he states that the force of the wind almost caused him to lose his balance on his motorcycle. Therefore, he had the wind in his face on Houston, since he states it was blowing from the north. While wearing a helmet and riding a motorcycle into the wind, he was able to hear three shots being fired. Further, by the time he was looking westward down Elm St., he was already aware that there were people quite obviously reacting to the sound of the shooting, and in fact he heard a woman screaming that someone had been shot.

Put yourself in his position and knowing what he knew prior to rushing into the TSBD, as a trained police-officer would you have done what he did that day, or would you have called for assistance and ensured that the building was surrounded and completely sealed-off by armed police- officers.?

Alaric observes that Oswald was going nowhere until Baker arrived on the scene. His encounter with Baker obviously changed his mind . The question arises as to whether Oswald's decision to depart the TSBD was planned, or was it his unthinking and spontaneous reaction to Baker's arrival. Was it a cleverly engineered ploy to get him out onto the street , or was it quite simply merely the result of the actions of a thoughtless police-officer heedlessly charging witlessly onto the pages of history and royally screwing things up... not alone for Oswald on that particular day in history, but permanently for all of us.

Congratulations, Alaric ! All of the information on the JFK assassionation is in, or at least all that we are going to receive well into the foreseeable future. What you have done is not to have created new information per se, but you most certainly have created new awareness and moved the thinking process upward and onward. Well done !

Edited March 19, 2008 by Ed O'Hagan

[Kathleen Collins]

I hate to complicate things, but to me there were two 'Oswalds' who left the TSBD area - one [who the WC was focused upon] who got on a bus and taxi and one [who the WC ignored] who got into the Rambler Wagon. Perhaps Armstrong really was more on the mark, than most want to acknowledge.....

I'm with you, Peter. Lee Oswald, who shot out the sixth floor window, then emerged at the side of the building and got into a Rambler. He was taken to a small airport and flown somewhere -- Cuba? Mexico? But...

Poor Harvey Oswald left after the shooting and got stuck in traffic, so found an alternate route to his house. A cop car pulled up in front of his door and hit the horn. Eventually, Harvey gets to the Texas Theater. Cops arrest him, causing a ruckus getting him into the car in front. But out the back door of the Theater, comes another Oswald, handcuffed with 2 congenial cops. Where is the Rambler and do the cops instead drive him to the airport?

This is a discrepancy. Did I miss something, Peter in Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong?

[Tony Austin]

Alaric,

I enjoyed reading your post. Picking up on your phrase "..behaviour inexplicable to reason and baffling to experience.." I have noticed that the items that were NOT found on Oswald when he was arrested are as revealing as the items that were found on him.

It is claimed that Oswald shot the President without any assistance and then he supposedly fled the scene of the crime and returned to his apartment where he was in such a hurry that he left after only a few minutes to continue his escape.

When he was arrested why did he not have a wash cloth, a towel and a shaving kit on him? all these items belonged to him and were found by the FBI back at 1026 Beckley Avenue. The FBI even found a "blue and black travel bag with zipper" he could have used to carry these items.

He had just committed the crime of the century and he managed to get back to the appartment he was renting under a false name. I feel sure that he would have collected the things to wash and shave himself if he really was the lone assassin making his escape. Even if he was in a hurry he could have shoved these useful items into a bag in less than 30 seconds. He could have also packed some spare clothing items and his address and phone book. Also, if he planned to flee the country he would have found useful to take his passport and birth certificate, both of these items were also found back at his apartment.

I would say the fact that when Oswald was arrested he had none of these items on him is 'behaviour inexplicable and baffling to experience'.

Best wishes

Tony

[William Kelly]

The time from Lee Oswald's Departure from the TSBD (12:33:30) to his arrest at the Texas Theatre (1:51) is 77½ minutes A period in which everybody's behaviour was inexplicable to reason and baffling to experience.

Alaric, it is apparent you have put a lot of time into the Tippit murder, but in asking your very pertinent questions you seem to be doing a lot of speculation. In addition, it's a mistake to rely on such dishonest books like Myers' "With Malice" when original records are available. As I recently explained to Gary Mack in an email, Dale Myers is deliberately deceptive and should not be cited as a source for anything.

I have great respect for Dale Myers' "With Malice ". A good 75% of the facts for my 2005 DPUK Canterbury Seminar Presentation ("Did Tippit Stop Anybody?") came from Mr Myers' research.

His book is an absolute 'must' for anybody who wants to understand the Tippit slaying. "With Malice" is an immensely impressive effort: well put together, clearly and concisely written, with excellent maps, and digitally enhanced photographs.. If this book doesn't convince you of Oswald's guilt, then nothing by any other author would do so.

Myers book may be convincing if you don't read anything else, but like Posner and Bugliosi et al, those who try to pin the blame for the assassination and Tippit murder on Oswald alone, also claim that he was a deranged lone nut who couldn't hold a job and beat his wife becuase he was such a loser.

In fact, the case for conspiracy doesn't depend on a multible assassin scenario, and far from being crazy, Lee Harvey Oswald was a well trained and experienced covert intelligence operative, who was part of a domestic, anti-Communist intelligence network affiliated with ONI and the CIA counter-intelligence.

However, for all that it is a far from being an unblemished book.. Michael Grifffith has provided a very detailed critique ("Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?": http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g...ith_Malice.html and I have myself many criticisms additional to those of Mr Griffith.

But the book's failures --- well, nearly all of them --- fall under one heading: "With Malice" is dominated by a mind set so fixed on Oswald's guilt that evidence becomes emptied of its immanent value and coherence, and instead is judged transcendentally --- solely by whether it fits into the jigsaw of Oswald's guilt.....

.......

[but putting aside Myers' erroneous Change of Direction Theory, and returning to reality Oswald in fact would never have seen Tippit's police car until it overtook him and stopped in front of him].......Myers uses Directional Change Theory to explain Tippit's suspicions of Oswald, but, as I showed in my Presentation to the DPUK Canterbury Seminar in 2005, this theory is incorrect. Myers writes (p 354) of Oswald's noticeable "demeanor and suspicions actions", but, again, as I showed in my Presentation, none of this has any basis in fact........

Is there any way you can post your DPUK Canterbury Seminar presentation here?

Even though Myers is a stuge, I happen to agree with him on the change-of-direction theory because it is behavior that fits in quite neetly with Oswald's covert intelligence operational profile, and exhibits his training in counter-suveillance and his use of standard operational techniques.

"When a tal-smart spy is trying to spot a possible surveillance, he may appear to act indecisively, even implausibly. Suddenly and without any apparent reason, he will whirl and double back on his tracks, looking into the faces of those behind him and making eye contact with as may of the crowd as he can. Any foot surveillant within a hundred feet of a clever spy who makes a series of these moves is likely to have to drop the chase." (Mole, by William Hood, Ballentine, 1982, p. 220).

(9) Myers tells us that Oswald felt severely threatened by police cars. He comments (p 363) that Oswald seemed to have taken 20 minutes to move from Tenth Street to the movie house --- normally a ten minute walk.

Myers attributes slowness this to Oswald fleeing from main roads to alleyways and side streets, in order to avoid all the hustle and bustle around him: Oswald, says Myers, is trying to avoid the lawmen who have poured into the area (mostly concentrated on Tenth Street) and the siren-shrieking police cars.......

"After doubling, redoubling, and doubling his path again, an agent may board a subway at the last minute, step off at the next stop, walk slowly along the platform toward the street exit, and, at the last moment, jump back onto the train....For measure, he might stop for an hour of browsing in Macy's....The Russians call this 'dry cleaning'....."

If we only had Myers talking about an abrupt change of direction by the suspect while walking down 10th street, then that would be speculation, but since the official story has him doing it three times - leaving the TSBD, walking five blocks, getting on a bus going in the opposite direction, abruptly leaving the bus after one block, getting a cab five blocks past his rooming house and walking back to it, then the possibly abrupt misdireciton on 10th street fits into the counter-surveillance pattern, by the book.

........

After Oswald is arrested, we never hear of any more leads. His guilt is never in doubt (M 178,179, 180). And this transformation --- from a lead into the lead --- happened immediately. But how? We are never told. Strangely the question is never asked.

That doesn't stop us from taking up the leads -

Bill Kelly

Edited March 21, 2008 by William Kelly

[Dixie Dea]

QUOTE

Oswald may well have been chosen to "infiltrate" such a group; his selection for the task could have seemed reasonable to him because of his successfully manufactured Communist past and because he had something of a genuine Mafia backround, largely through his Mafia uncle, Charles Murret. [Oswald was born in the crime-ridden section of the French Quarters of New Orleans: his childhood was sent in a Mafia controlled area of bars, strip joints, gambling house.

In this area he often lived with hs mother's sister and her husband Charles "Dutz" Murret, who helpde run an illegal gambling network for Carlos Marcello.

Charles Murret kept in close touch with Oswald throughout Lee's entire life. He visited Lee when he was in prison following his arrrest over the Free Cuba leaflet fracas, and stayed with him immediately after his return from the Soviet Union. And he kept in touch with Lee whilst he(Lee) was in the marines and the Soviet Union. "The Mafia Killed President Kennedy", David Scheim, WH Allen, '88, P 43]

Oswald would then have had, through his uncle, ready contact with key Mafia elements. However, although intelligent, Oswald was through inexperience and its accompanying uncritical eagerness, very open to being conned

UNQUOTE

Hi Alaric,

I enjoyed reading your information and am also enjoing reading this thread. In addition, I have had much interest in what was going on around Tippit. For a long time, I delayed reading Dale Myers book, because after reading Gerald Posner's book, I was no longer interested in more LN type books. However, I did finally decide to read it and was more pleasantly surprised, then I had anticipated. Unfortunately, I also agree with Bill Kelly, that Myers just doesn't go far enough, to answer many concerns or he minimizes many things as well. I haven't been able to make up my own mind if Oswald actually shot Tippit or not. In fact, I have changed my mind several times about that.

However, my reason for replying has to do with your above clipped statements. I believe this part to be rather erroneous or perhaps only speculative. You gave David Scheim as a source, so I believe he is not correct.

First of all, LHO was not born in the Feench Quarter and raisied around the Mob controlled environment. .His father, bought a house on Alvar Street, for the family in around 1938. Then his father, suddenly died 2-3 months before LHO was born, in 1939.

Margaurite Oswald was not able to care for her three boys, plus she needed to work. She put the two older boys (John Pic and Robert Oswald) into orphanages and boarding homes. LHO was too young, so he mostly stayed with his Aunt Lillian and Uncle Dutz Murrett, until he was around four years old. Then he was also placed into an orphanage. He was much too young to be influenced by his Uncle Dutz's Mafia relationships. There is no proof that Uncle Dutz actually even paid al that muc attention to LHO. He had about four kids of his own to raise.

Most likely though, his mother also had Mafia acquaintances and perhaps even dated some. Yet, he was still too young to be influenced any. But finally, his mother married Edward Eckdahl and the family moved to Fort Worth. The two older boys were placed at the Hunt-Chamberlain Academy...while LHO traveled around with his mother and stepfather. There is again no proof that LHO even saw Uncle Dutz, after they moved to Fort Worth, and as he was growing up.

After his mother and stepfather divorced, they begin moving around in Fort Worth, quite a lot for some reason! Then when LHO was about 12 years old, his mother took him to New York, where they lived for awhile with John Pic and his family. Then LHO began his playing hooky from school and ran into problems about that. Eventually, his mother moved with him, back to New Orleans. This time they did live in the French Quarter among the Mob element. Yet, again no proof that LHO was influenced by any of it. In fact, he had different interests. Such as studying Marxism, studying astronomy and an interest in the Civil Air Patrol.

It is assumed of course, they visited with his aunt and uncle Murrett, but again no proof that LHO was particularly close to Uncle Dutz His main interest was most likely in visiting his Murritt cousins. I also have to wonder why Uncle Dutz would have introduced LHO to the Mafia, any more then he would have LHO's older brothers, or his own kids. I would suspect that he might have kept that life separate from his private family life.

Then, LHO went into the Marines, after trying and failing previously because of being underage. Although at one point LHO was stationed close enough to N.O., where he could have gone to visit his relatives, there is no indiaction that he actually did so.

There is no proof of any contact with Uncle Dutz, whatsoever, from the time he went into the Marines until after he returned from Russia and much later moved back to N.O. from Dallas. When he first arrived there, he did stay with the Murrits until he found a job at Riley's. Then he borrowed some money from Uncle Dutz to rent an apartment, so Marina and little June could join him.

Sometime later, one of his Murritt cousins, who was in a Jesuit Seminary, invited him there to make a talk. The Murrits did drive him and Marina there,which I am thinking was in Missisippi.

Most likely LHO and Marina did go visit the Murrits occasionally, but again there is no proof that Uncle Dutz's mafia connections were ever discussed with LHO, at any time. Eventually LHO was arrested for that street fight with Bringuier. He did make a phone call to the Murrits , to get bailed out of jail. Only his female cousin was at home and she called one of her fathers friends, who did go bail him out. It was a very small amount though. Again no proof that Uncle Dutz was ever involved in this or any of LHO's activites, in any way.

I do not see that Uncle Dutz ever influenced LHO's life towards the Mafia in any way. It might have happened, but there is just no proof that it did happen. As I mentioned above, he had four kids of his own to raise. Far as I am able to see, they all turned out to be respectable adults. A Priest, a Dentist, a Psychlogist and an Educater..who traveled around the world in her teaching and it is also believed by some, that she had CIA connections.

I do hope that you will check into this more thoroughly, rather then just Scheims work. Plus, I do hope you will not regard my post as criticism, because i have enjoyed reading your thread.

________

Dixie

[William Kelly]

Alaric,

Can you post your UK conference abstract that debunks Myers' theory of Oswald's sudden movements attracting the attention of Tippit?

Thanks,

BK