Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Other Murder in Dealey Plaza that Week-end


Pamela Brown
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Other Murder in Dealey Plaza that Weekend

News Type: Event — Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:25 PM CST

lee-oswald, jfk, assassination, controversial-prisoners,

Pamela McElwain-Brown

There were two Murders in Dealey Plaza that Week-end. For many of us old enough to be aware of the horrific events that transpired from November 22 through November 24, 1963, the most traumatic was not even the murder of President John F. Kennedy, whom we had seen and admired or perhaps disliked from afar, or the murder of DPD officer J. D. Tippit in Oak Cliff, not long afterward, but the murder live on television of his accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963.

The first event we could do nothing about; it was over before most of us even realized it. The President was dead, and all we could do was mourn his passing. But for two days, from his arrest up until his murder at the hands of Jack Ruby while under custody of the DallasPolice Department, we caught glimpses and saw photos of Lee Oswald. We saw him with unkempt hair and a black eye, hurling his fists in the air at the time of his arrest; we saw and heard him, frightened, asking for a lawyer. We heard him proclaim in passing that he was innocent, that he hadn't killed anyone; that he didn't even realize he was being indicted for the murder of the President until a member of the press told him.

Whatever our impressions of him may have been, curious, contemptuous,puzzled -- we learned perhaps more about him during those early days after the assassination than we knew about John F. Kennedy. We learned that he had a 'troubled' childhood, came from a broken home, went into the Marines underage, left and defected to the Soviet Union. We learned that he fell in love and came back to the US with his Russian bride and baby. We learned they had just had a second girl, and that they were separated, ostensibly, for reasons of money.

We learned that Lee Oswald did not fit the description of a typical American young man. He had pushed the envelope in his life and seemed to create trouble wherever he went. He had even tried to give up his citizenship. Many of us didn't know what to think about him, but we were relieved at the thought that there would be plenty of time to make up our minds, as he had been arrested and was going to stand trial for the murder of John F. Kennedy, and also for that of J. D. Tippit in Oak Cliff, the area in which he had a room and where he was arrested. We thought there would be time to sort things out. We were wrong.

Sunday morning, as TV cameras recorded Mrs. Kennedy and her children leaving the White House for the Capitol, where the body of JFK lay in state,and as many of us in front of the television, having uncharacteristically stayed home from church, eating Swanson TV dinners on TV trays, the cameras switched to the dingy garage basement of the DPD. Out walked Lee Oswald, handcuffed to two detectives. Our first impression might have been, "they finally let him change his clothes." He was wearing a black sweater instead of the rumpled shirt and torn t-shirt he had been wearing for the last two days. He was being transferred from the Dallas Police Headquarters to the Dallas County Jail. In an instant, with perhaps a momentary look of shock or recognition, Lee Oswald fell to the ground, unconscious from of a gunshot to the abdomen. He died not much later, in the same hospital where JFK had lain only two days before.

Oswald's assassin, Jack Ruby, was of course quickly taken into custody. That case seemed closed, as well as that of Officer Tippit, for whose murder, another senseless and tragic event, no investigation was ever conducted. Of course, the promise of Lee Oswald's being allowed to stand trial was not to be. That alone removed the issues from the state level to a much higher level -- that of the White House. Actually, this was consistent with the fate of the body of JFK and the Presidential limousine; both were whisked out of Dallas before the DPD or Medical Examiner could do an autopsy or forensic exam. Was this simply due to the Secret Service being protective of the president and his car, or was this done as a strategy to distance the crime from Dallas?

In Lee Oswald's case, it seemed to be a blessing to the government that he was no longer talking to the press about his innocence, and requesting a lawyer. Was his murder just a godsend, or was it part of a strategy? Had something happened that made Lee Oswald too much of a danger to be allowed to live?

Lee's wife Marina, with the two children, and his mother Marguerite, were quickly taken into 'protective custody' by the SS. Marina was threatened with deportation if she didn't do as instructed, but Marguerite, whose belief in her son's innocence never faded, was just subjected to ridicule. Marina was manageable, and buckled under only pressure; she said she believed Lee was guilty, based on what she had been told. Later, to her credit, she read the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, and came forward to change her mind.

Marguerite tried to find answers to what had happened to her son. She had a belligerent and badgering manner, plus geeky black glasses that made her an easy target for the press. She believed Lee had been used by the government as early as his departure for the Soviet Union. She had no doubt that he was connected to the government in some way. Her faith in him never waivered until the day she died.

But scarce days after Lee's death LBJ instituted the Warren Commission. Its function was to tell the country how Lee Oswald had acted alone in the assassination of JFK. It maintained an unwaveringly narrow focus, and stubbornly refused to look at any information that would have connected him to a conspiracy. When it was published, in September of 1964, a new industry had been created -- the public was brainwashed through the news media and television to believe the Warren Commission Report even though their common sense caused them to want to ask questions. Those were the halcyon days of what was the beginning of the ongoing coverup -- if you didn't believe the WCR you were un-American; and if you questioned whether the govt had the right to try someone who was dead you risked being labeled a Communist. From the start, the elitist attitude of those promoting the WCR placed them at the center of all that was right and good, of all things truly "American". Teachers and professors were wary of questioning the report; those working in the entertainment industry knew their job security was linked to towing what quickly became the party line. Even William Manchester, with his massive tome on the assassination called "Death of a President", was called to task repeatedly by the president's widow, for revealing more than what was safe or acceptable.

But somehow, in the midst of this propaganda, there were those who began to fight back at once. Mark Lane, quickly labeled a Communist, of course, began speaking in New York City. A bootleg copy of the Zapruder film was shown at the Bleeker Street Cinema in November of 1964, following a showing of the Wolper film "1000 Days". Some of us had nightmares for weeks after watching JFK die before our eyes.

The ragtag group of dissidents soon found an audience -- it turned out very few Americans had swallowed the WCR whole after all. They just didn't have the guts to speak out about it and share their concerns until others put themselves on the firing line.

And so the war of words and evidence began, between those who believed the WCR (Lone Nutters) and those who did not (Conspiracy Theorists, or "Buffs"). Forty-five years later the debate ranges on, fueled by offerings of what can only be described as the ongoing coverup which attempts to demand that the public believe the WCR, all over again.

The latest offerings in this commemorative year are Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" and the new Discovery Channel Show "Target Car". Both begin and end with the very narrow position that Lee Oswald acted alone. Both have used media hype to attempt to bully the public. Both have made fantastic claims which they were unable to uphold. The spokespeople for both of course claim victory over the CTs -- but it is the equivalent of Hitler claiming victory from the bunker. For now we have entered the age of the internet and youtube, and everyone has a voice. Each of us can see for ourselves and decide for ourselves what to think.

But the voice of the ongoing coverup will continue to demonize Lee Oswald, especially this time of year. It will come down from on high from the very building where he worked before he was arrested and killed, the Texas School Book Depository, Now the Sixth Floor Museum.

It will demand that we forgo our common sense and instead listen to those who are 'smarter, wiser and more knowledgeable' than ourselves; we are to allow these elitists to tell us what to think, just like in the good old days of early WCR. We are to forget that Lee Oswald was denied rights given to him by the Constitution -- a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He was denied all rights while in police custody -- he was not provided with legal representation even after he asked for it. He was interrogated for hours at a time without a lawyer present. He was demonized in the press and media -- hardly anyone called him the 'alleged' assassin. He was put into lineups wearing just his ragged t-shirt, along with others wearing dress shirts. He was treated contemptuously by those who questioned him, including the DPD and the FBI.

And then he was murdered while in police custody. No investigation ever transpired to hold those accountable who were responsible for that. No commission was opened to find out if this was simply an egregious error of judgment on the part of Police Chief Curry or part of a larger plot. And no measures were taken to protect his presumption of innocence. His mother tried to hire a lawyer -- Mark Lane -- to represent Lee Oswald in the WC hearings. Even that was doomed -- Lee Oswald was to be the scapegoat for all the tragedy of that week-end, no matter what. He had no rights in life or in death.But now, from our vantage point 45 years later, we can, if we listen, hear the cries of those imprisoned at Guantanamo, who too have been denied rights. Many of them have been held in legal limbo for years. That this is unconstitutional bothers few; they may be terrorists, so they don't deserve to have rights. Where did our callousness come from? Take a guess.

Let's take this point one step further -- if our basic rights can be denied to one of us, they can be denied to any of us. Each of us can be subject to demonization and destruction at the whims of the government. Our only hope is to see those controversial prisoners, such as Lee Oswald, as one of us, and move forward on their behalf,securing rights for them and for ourselves. Otherwise, what safety do we have left?

We will be spending some time this evening remembering the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, using materials provided by Judyth Baker, who speaks out on his behalf despite trials and hardships imposed on her by some who have tried to block her coming forward. We will also be remembering other controversial prisoners who are now facing the same issues that Lee Oswald faced 45 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Other Murder in Dealey Plaza that Weekend

News Type: Event — Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:25 PM CST

lee-oswald, jfk, assassination, controversial-prisoners,

Pamela McElwain-Brown

There were two Murders in Dealey Plaza that Week-end. For many of us old enough to be aware of the horrific events that transpired from November 22 through November 24, 1963, the most traumatic was not even the murder of President John F. Kennedy, whom we had seen and admired or perhaps disliked from afar, or the murder of DPD officer J. D. Tippit in Oak Cliff, not long afterward, but the murder live on television of his accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963.

The first event we could do nothing about; it was over before most of us even realized it. The President was dead, and all we could do was mourn his passing. But for two days, from his arrest up until his murder at the hands of Jack Ruby while under custody of the DallasPolice Department, we caught glimpses and saw photos of Lee Oswald. We saw him with unkempt hair and a black eye, hurling his fists in the air at the time of his arrest; we saw and heard him, frightened, asking for a lawyer. We heard him proclaim in passing that he was innocent, that he hadn't killed anyone; that he didn't even realize he was being indicted for the murder of the President until a member of the press told him.

Whatever our impressions of him may have been, curious, contemptuous,puzzled -- we learned perhaps more about him during those early days after the assassination than we knew about John F. Kennedy. We learned that he had a 'troubled' childhood, came from a broken home, went into the Marines underage, left and defected to the Soviet Union. We learned that he fell in love and came back to the US with his Russian bride and baby. We learned they had just had a second girl, and that they were separated, ostensibly, for reasons of money.

We learned that Lee Oswald did not fit the description of a typical American young man. He had pushed the envelope in his life and seemed to create trouble wherever he went. He had even tried to give up his citizenship. Many of us didn't know what to think about him, but we were relieved at the thought that there would be plenty of time to make up our minds, as he had been arrested and was going to stand trial for the murder of John F. Kennedy, and also for that of J. D. Tippit in Oak Cliff, the area in which he had a room and where he was arrested. We thought there would be time to sort things out. We were wrong.

Sunday morning, as TV cameras recorded Mrs. Kennedy and her children leaving the White House for the Capitol, where the body of JFK lay in state,and as many of us in front of the television, having uncharacteristically stayed home from church, eating Swanson TV dinners on TV trays, the cameras switched to the dingy garage basement of the DPD. Out walked Lee Oswald, handcuffed to two detectives. Our first impression might have been, "they finally let him change his clothes." He was wearing a black sweater instead of the rumpled shirt and torn t-shirt he had been wearing for the last two days. He was being transferred from the Dallas Police Headquarters to the Dallas County Jail. In an instant, with perhaps a momentary look of shock or recognition, Lee Oswald fell to the ground, unconscious from of a gunshot to the abdomen. He died not much later, in the same hospital where JFK had lain only two days before.

Oswald's assassin, Jack Ruby, was of course quickly taken into custody. That case seemed closed, as well as that of Officer Tippit, for whose murder, another senseless and tragic event, no investigation was ever conducted. Of course, the promise of Lee Oswald's being allowed to stand trial was not to be. That alone removed the issues from the state level to a much higher level -- that of the White House. Actually, this was consistent with the fate of the body of JFK and the Presidential limousine; both were whisked out of Dallas before the DPD or Medical Examiner could do an autopsy or forensic exam. Was this simply due to the Secret Service being protective of the president and his car, or was this done as a strategy to distance the crime from Dallas?

In Lee Oswald's case, it seemed to be a blessing to the government that he was no longer talking to the press about his innocence, and requesting a lawyer. Was his murder just a godsend, or was it part of a strategy? Had something happened that made Lee Oswald too much of a danger to be allowed to live?

Lee's wife Marina, with the two children, and his mother Marguerite, were quickly taken into 'protective custody' by the SS. Marina was threatened with deportation if she didn't do as instructed, but Marguerite, whose belief in her son's innocence never faded, was just subjected to ridicule. Marina was manageable, and buckled under only pressure; she said she believed Lee was guilty, based on what she had been told. Later, to her credit, she read the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, and came forward to change her mind.

Marguerite tried to find answers to what had happened to her son. She had a belligerent and badgering manner, plus geeky black glasses that made her an easy target for the press. She believed Lee had been used by the government as early as his departure for the Soviet Union. She had no doubt that he was connected to the government in some way. Her faith in him never waivered until the day she died.

But scarce days after Lee's death LBJ instituted the Warren Commission. Its function was to tell the country how Lee Oswald had acted alone in the assassination of JFK. It maintained an unwaveringly narrow focus, and stubbornly refused to look at any information that would have connected him to a conspiracy. When it was published, in September of 1964, a new industry had been created -- the public was brainwashed through the news media and television to believe the Warren Commission Report even though their common sense caused them to want to ask questions. Those were the halcyon days of what was the beginning of the ongoing coverup -- if you didn't believe the WCR you were un-American; and if you questioned whether the govt had the right to try someone who was dead you risked being labeled a Communist. From the start, the elitist attitude of those promoting the WCR placed them at the center of all that was right and good, of all things truly "American". Teachers and professors were wary of questioning the report; those working in the entertainment industry knew their job security was linked to towing what quickly became the party line. Even William Manchester, with his massive tome on the assassination called "Death of a President", was called to task repeatedly by the president's widow, for revealing more than what was safe or acceptable.

But somehow, in the midst of this propaganda, there were those who began to fight back at once. Mark Lane, quickly labeled a Communist, of course, began speaking in New York City. A bootleg copy of the Zapruder film was shown at the Bleeker Street Cinema in November of 1964, following a showing of the Wolper film "1000 Days". Some of us had nightmares for weeks after watching JFK die before our eyes.

The ragtag group of dissidents soon found an audience -- it turned out very few Americans had swallowed the WCR whole after all. They just didn't have the guts to speak out about it and share their concerns until others put themselves on the firing line.

And so the war of words and evidence began, between those who believed the WCR (Lone Nutters) and those who did not (Conspiracy Theorists, or "Buffs"). Forty-five years later the debate ranges on, fueled by offerings of what can only be described as the ongoing coverup which attempts to demand that the public believe the WCR, all over again.

The latest offerings in this commemorative year are Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" and the new Discovery Channel Show "Target Car". Both begin and end with the very narrow position that Lee Oswald acted alone. Both have used media hype to attempt to bully the public. Both have made fantastic claims which they were unable to uphold. The spokespeople for both of course claim victory over the CTs -- but it is the equivalent of Hitler claiming victory from the bunker. For now we have entered the age of the internet and youtube, and everyone has a voice. Each of us can see for ourselves and decide for ourselves what to think.

But the voice of the ongoing coverup will continue to demonize Lee Oswald, especially this time of year. It will come down from on high from the very building where he worked before he was arrested and killed, the Texas School Book Depository, Now the Sixth Floor Museum.

It will demand that we forgo our common sense and instead listen to those who are 'smarter, wiser and more knowledgeable' than ourselves; we are to allow these elitists to tell us what to think, just like in the good old days of early WCR. We are to forget that Lee Oswald was denied rights given to him by the Constitution -- a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He was denied all rights while in police custody -- he was not provided with legal representation even after he asked for it. He was interrogated for hours at a time without a lawyer present. He was demonized in the press and media -- hardly anyone called him the 'alleged' assassin. He was put into lineups wearing just his ragged t-shirt, along with others wearing dress shirts. He was treated contemptuously by those who questioned him, including the DPD and the FBI.

And then he was murdered while in police custody. No investigation ever transpired to hold those accountable who were responsible for that. No commission was opened to find out if this was simply an egregious error of judgment on the part of Police Chief Curry or part of a larger plot. And no measures were taken to protect his presumption of innocence. His mother tried to hire a lawyer -- Mark Lane -- to represent Lee Oswald in the WC hearings. Even that was doomed -- Lee Oswald was to be the scapegoat for all the tragedy of that week-end, no matter what. He had no rights in life or in death.But now, from our vantage point 45 years later, we can, if we listen, hear the cries of those imprisoned at Guantanamo, who too have been denied rights. Many of them have been held in legal limbo for years. That this is unconstitutional bothers few; they may be terrorists, so they don't deserve to have rights. Where did our callousness come from? Take a guess.

Let's take this point one step further -- if our basic rights can be denied to one of us, they can be denied to any of us. Each of us can be subject to demonization and destruction at the whims of the government. Our only hope is to see those controversial prisoners, such as Lee Oswald, as one of us, and move forward on their behalf,securing rights for them and for ourselves. Otherwise, what safety do we have left?

We will be spending some time Monday evening remembering the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, using materials provided by Judyth Baker, who speaks out on his behalf despite trials and hardships imposed on her by some who have tried to block her coming forward. We will also be remembering other controversial prisoners who are now facing the same issues that Lee Oswald faced 45 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will be spending some time Monday evening remembering the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, using materials provided by Judyth Baker, who speaks out on his behalf despite trials and hardships imposed on her by some who have tried to block her coming forward.

"Some who have tried to block her coming forward."

Uhh, don't blame me ! I don't fit that shoe ! :tomatoes:lol:

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, don't blame me ! I don't fit that shoe !

Wim

No, Wim; I was thinking of those in the US who have done everything possible to try to discredit Judyth by making false claims and working to undermine her. That is terrible treatment of a documented witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...