If Oswald didn't do it

[Guest Duncan MacRae]

Why did whoever did it need a patsy?

[William Kelly]

Why did whoever did it need a patsy?

Watch the Bogart movie the Maltise Falcon.

Once they figure out who did what, and reallign alliances, they still had a few dead bodies to account for, and the law won't rest until it has a scapegoat, so Boggie suggests they give up the little squirt who did the fat man's bidding, and they give him up as the fall guy and patsy. Otherwise the legal judicial mechanism will require an investigation and hunt for the murderer(s).

Once the accused murder is himself killed while in police custody, the bogus evidence used to frame him is never entered into evidence or goes to grand jury or court and is not examined.

And so far, Ozzie the Rabbit has worked just fine, playing his role like an Ace.

Who says Oswald's a loser?

I met Murder on the way

He had a mask like Castlereagh:

Very smooth he looked, yet grim;

Seven bloodhounds followed him.

All were fat; and well they might

Be in admirable plight,

For one by one, and two by two,

He tossed them human hearts to chew.

From - The Masque of Anarchy. From: "Studies In Murder" by Edmund Lester Pearson.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/related-unsolved-homicides.htm

Edited September 15, 2010 by William Kelly

[David S. Brownlee]

Why did whoever did it need a patsy?

I would guess Oswald was involved - but not very close to the real workings of the hit. Oswald was passing out pro-cuba leaflets on the street in New Orleans. This was obviously an attempt to xxxxx for US communists (and a pretty lame one at that). Oswald was no liberal...he was in the game with the CIA. No regular Marine from nowhere gets language training - gets a TS clearance to work in his "job" - defects to (then) USSR...comes back..and then simply shows up at the Texas School Book Depository on the day of the assassination.

Oswald was the "patsy" but things didn't go to plan. IMHO if all would have worked out Oswald would have been killed earlier. It's the same with the JFK hit. They wanted it to be a "one shot deal" but that didn't work either. To their credit (as much as you can give murderers credit)...they did have a backup plan. If it was a "one shot deal" the assassin would have shot P-K while the motorcade approached the TSBD...not as it was driving away down a hill and turning.

This (IMHO) is why Bobby Kennedy was killed by a contact wound behind the ear.....lessons learned....reduce variables.

[William Kelly]

Why did whoever did it need a patsy?

Duncan,

Gary Mack says I completely missed your point.

Will you please rephrase the question or explain it to someone who just doesn't get it?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

[Greg Parker]

Why did whoever did it need a patsy?

Duncan,

Gary Mack says I completely missed your point.

Will you please rephrase the question or explain it to someone who just doesn't get it?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Did Gary Mack frame the question for Duncan?

Since Oswald provably had an airtight alibi, the question has no place in the debate.

The right question is, why was Oswald's alibi twisted to remove its airtight quality if a patsy wasn't required?

Edited September 16, 2010 by Greg Parker

[David Josephs]

The crucial word in the question is "NEED"

Why would unknown assassins who have no intention of getting caught, NEED to frame anyone at all?

A patsy was required... and a dead patsy at that.... so there would be no further investigation.

So that those that did the deed and more importantly those who orchestrated it, would never be uncovered.

Like in Body Heat when Turner supposedly dies in the explosion at the end... if she is dead AND Hurt is the patsy... the case ends and no one goes looking for the pretty women lying on the beach.

The perpetrators NEEDED the greatest amount of time before anyone would get suspicious. A dead, convicted patsy accomplishes this....

But he was not dead

so the investigation needed to start and end with Oswald (ala Katzenbach's letter)

EVERYTHING that was skewed, distorted, falsified, hidden, destroyed, etc... was to focus the guilt on Oswald.

If he had been killed prior to capture it would have taken much more time for the likes of Lane and others to not only begin digging... but to get ANY answers.

Once Ruby kills Oswald, anyone with a brain has to be suspicious.

Kind of like the patsies of Watergate who, imo, to this day have hidden the real reasons behind the breakin...

70+% of the world may still think there was a conspiracy... but the official line is still that Oswald did it...

and Osama (or Saddam depending on who you ask) was behind 911... you think Bush and Cheney were worried about being caught???

my .02

DJ

Edited September 16, 2010 by David Josephs

[Jim Root]

Duncan

I usually do not post about issues dealing with the events of November 22, 1963. Although I began my quest believing there was not a conspiracy most of my research has been an attempt to search for those who were conspirators and, of course, I mow believe that there was a conspiracy.

My research has led me to believe that the primary person behind the assassination may well have been John J. McCloy. It is interesting to point out that he is the first person, as a Warren Commissioner, to point out the difficulty of believing in the "magic bullet" as well as stoping the questioning of FBI Agent Hosty just after Hosty reported that he had identified where Oswald was working and that he had forwarded that information to the State Departmaent and to FBI headquarters. But I digress.

A majority of the reasons that researchers give that would lead us to belive that Oswald was a "patsy" for the conspirators begins with their belief that Oswald could not have been a shooter and that the fatal bullets could not have been fired from the TSBD or some sort of twist on this idea. The primary divide between "lone nutters" and conspiracy theorist hinges on this single point. I think it is fair to say that "lone nutters" continue to believe the offical version, that Oswald acted alone, therefore no conspiracy. "Lone nutters" seem all to willing to accept one shooter proves no conspiracy rather than accepting that a conspiracy could still have existed that would include Oswald. On the other hand it seems the "holy grail" of conspiracy theroists is that there must have been more than one shooter and that, therefore, even if Oswald was in any way involved he was actually "set up" as the "patsy" because the "magic bullet" is an impossibility.

I have spent a great deal of time pondering how a group of conspirators could have executed a plan so exact and percise that, to this day, it has alowed their names to remain a mystery. I at times speculate that if Oswald was the shooter for the conspirators they would want the world to believe that he was nothing more than a patsy and therefore not a shooter. If this speculation is correct then the conspiracy theorist have done more to protect the conspirators than to uncover who they actually were. If on the other hand Oswald was not a shooter and was the pre-determined "patsy" then they had to be sure that Oswald was in a place that the motorcade would pass at the exact time that the assassination would take place. In either case, Oswald a shooter or Oswald the "patsy" John J. McCloy's refusal to put Hosty's third note into the record and to investigate exactly who in government had access to the knowledge of where Oswald was working prior to the final decissions on the exact motorcade route leads me to suggest that McCloy didn't want that information to become public. I can only speculate on why McCloy would not want it public but for the attorney who broke the Black Tom case not to want to know who in government had access to where Oswald was working prior to the Dallas visit is either complete negligence or part of a greater coverup.

On the other hand it seems that McCloy did want the public to know about the controversy surrounding the "magic bullet" before the final Commission Report was completed.

I might suggest that McCloy needed Oswald to be a "patsy" so that the conspirators would never be caught.

Jim Root

[Bernice Moore]

JIM, VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION THANKS, "" I have spent a great deal of time pondering how a group of conspirators could have executed a plan so exact and percise that, to this day, it has alowed their names to remain a mystery"". COULD THIS BE BECAUSE THEY WERE IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATING THEMSELVES, THEREFORE NOTHING WOULD LEAD TO THEM..THEY THOUGHT...BEST B

[Jack White]

Duncan

I usually do not post about issues dealing with the events of November 22, 1963. Although I began my quest believing there was not a conspiracy most of my research has been an attempt to search for those who were conspirators and, of course, I mow believe that there was a conspiracy.

My research has led me to believe that the primary person behind the assassination may well have been John J. McCloy. It is interesting to point out that he is the first person, as a Warren Commissioner, to point out the difficulty of believing in the "magic bullet" as well as stoping the questioning of FBI Agent Hosty just after Hosty reported that he had identified where Oswald was working and that he had forwarded that information to the State Departmaent and to FBI headquarters. But I digress.

A majority of the reasons that researchers give that would lead us to belive that Oswald was a "patsy" for the conspirators begins with their belief that Oswald could not have been a shooter and that the fatal bullets could not have been fired from the TSBD or some sort of twist on this idea. The primary divide between "lone nutters" and conspiracy theorist hinges on this single point. I think it is fair to say that "lone nutters" continue to believe the offical version, that Oswald acted alone, therefore no conspiracy. "Lone nutters" seem all to willing to accept one shooter proves no conspiracy rather than accepting that a conspiracy could still have existed that would include Oswald. On the other hand it seems the "holy grail" of conspiracy theroists is that there must have been more than one shooter and that, therefore, even if Oswald was in any way involved he was actually "set up" as the "patsy" because the "magic bullet" is an impossibility.

I have spent a great deal of time pondering how a group of conspirators could have executed a plan so exact and percise that, to this day, it has alowed their names to remain a mystery. I at times speculate that if Oswald was the shooter for the conspirators they would want the world to believe that he was nothing more than a patsy and therefore not a shooter. If this speculation is correct then the conspiracy theorist have done more to protect the conspirators than to uncover who they actually were. If on the other hand Oswald was not a shooter and was the pre-determined "patsy" then they had to be sure that Oswald was in a place that the motorcade would pass at the exact time that the assassination would take place. In either case, Oswald a shooter or Oswald the "patsy" John J. McCloy's refusal to put Hosty's third note into the record and to investigate exactly who in government had access to the knowledge of where Oswald was working prior to the final decissions on the exact motorcade route leads me to suggest that McCloy didn't want that information to become public. I can only speculate on why McCloy would not want it public but for the attorney who broke the Black Tom case not to want to know who in government had access to where Oswald was working prior to the Dallas visit is either complete negligence or part of a greater coverup.

On the other hand it seems that McCloy did want the public to know about the controversy surrounding the "magic bullet" before the final Commission Report was completed.

I might suggest that McCloy needed Oswald to be a "patsy" so that the conspirators would never be caught.

Jim Root

And you know, of course, who McCloy was a front man for? If so, you are on the right track, but just scratching the surface.

Like many others, McCloy was fronting for the real perps.

Jack

[Don Jeffries]

Duncan, it's hard to take your question seriously. Obviously, if one believes that powerful forces arranged to have JFK assassinated, one doesn't think that those forces would claim credit for it. The crime had to be blamed on someone, and the evidence suggests that Oswald was groomed for the role. Certainly, the public wouldn't have accepted an unsolved murder here.

Conspirators generally need a fall guy or patsy, or how else could their conspiracy succeed?

[Jim Root]

Duncan

Within my speculations I have named the "they" who would need Lee Harvey Oswald to be the "patsy" as John J. McCloy.

Following up on this speculation my research led to Attorney Bellin and the, I believe, Rockefeller Commission. Bellin asked the CIA to do a forensic study of Oswwald to see if he was mentally capable of committing the murder of John F. Kennedy. Interestingly the CIA report showed that with the information that was available to the government in 1963, if (and it is an interesting if), they (CIA phsyco docs) had known that Oswald had attempted to murder Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker they would have been able to predict that Oswald, if given the opportunity, would kill the President.

If the Warren Commission was an attempt to frame Oswald, as many suggest, a study simaliar to the Bellin study would have gone a long way toward pointing toward the guilt of Oswald. It was not done at that time and I guess we could ask why? Following this line of speculation we might ask how the conspirators would have known that Oswald may have attempted to take the life of Walker as Marina continues to suggest that he did to this day. If you want to believe the testimony then we find that George de Mohrenschildt (brother of Demitri) went to Oswalds home the day after the attempted assassination of Walker and asked, something like, "how did you miss?" before disappearing from the scene.

Remembering that Demitri de Morhrenschildt and Whitney Shepardson started Radio Free Europe and that Whitney Shepardson appointed John J. McCloy to the World Bank as well as starting an organization called the Council on Foreign Relations. Extending this further we find that during WWII McCloy appointed Whitney Shepardson as the head of Secret Intelligence. A member of SI was Richard Helms and in June of 1959 Helms and Shepardson are meeting about what one former OSS agent suggested was going to be an off track mission via Helsinki Finland in the near future. A few months after these meeting Lee Harvey Oswald would defect to the Soviet Union via Helsinki and threaten to give up secrets about the U-2 Spy Plane. Interestingly at the same time that Oswald is defecting to the Soviet Union John J. McCloy is expressing a fear that the proposed Limited Test Ban Treaty would leave the United States at a disadvantage in the Cold War. That Treaty was never signed after the May 1, 1960 U-2 affair derailed the Paris Summit. McCloy's wish came true.

And Oswald would say, while in custody after the assassination of JFK, "the reason I'm being arrested is that I went to the Soviet Union, I'm a patsy." It has been a difficult struggle to follow speculation but in answer to your question I will speculate that John J. McCloy did need the patsy Oswald to eliminate a President that he had had a disagreement with over Nuclear Disarmament talks. Interestingly McCloy is then appointed to the Warren Commission where, at least to me, 3 major points are covered up (A. Oswald's plane flight/passenger list from London to Helsinki, B. Hosty's third note that identified exactly where Lee Harvey Oswald was working prior to the design of the motorcade route and C. The attempted phone call to John Hurt made by Lee Harvey Oswald).

Perhaps even more interesting to speculate upon is why the assassination was done. While some speculate that it was to provoke an invasion of Cuba or a retaliation by the Mafia for RFK crusade against them or even Cuban exiles for JFK's failure to support them at the Bay of Pigs. I personally speculate that the conspirator/s may not have failed in what they hoped to accomplish.

After resigning as Kennedy's chief arms negotiator in June of 1963, Lyndon Johnson would reappoint McCloy to that position after the assassination and McCloy would continue to negotiate and achieve the Comprehensive Treaties that he had worked toward since 1945.

I speculate that it was McCloy who needed the "patsy" Oswald to accomplish his well designed goals. And McCloy did achieve his goals. My question is, "Is it reasonable to speculate that John J. McCloy used Lee Harvey Oswald as his "patsy" twice?"

I think even Oswald realized he had been made the "patsy" when he went to the Soviet Union, at least thats what Oswald gave as his own reason for being arrested for the assassination of JFK.

Jim Root

Edited September 16, 2010 by Jim Root

[Jim Root]

Duncan

Thank you for the kind words.

As I stated previously I did not start my inquiry believing that there had been a conspiracy. Some 20 years later I "speculate" that there was.

Each speculation has led to the need to find some sort of supporting evidence which has usually led to new speculations. When I read Bugliosi's book I found it interesting that he himnself pointed out that if you prove that a person has withheld information that would point toward that persons own guilt, the withholding of that information can, in itself, be presented as evidence to prove guilt.

In his book Bugliosi used the fact that Oswald withheld the information that he had lived at the residence where the back yard photos had been taken after Oswald had been shown the backyard photos. I am not an attorney but do believe that it is factual to state that the withholding from evidence of the three facts that I brought up in my last post all can be associated with John J. McCloy and in two out of the three McCloy is at best negligent for failing to have the infomation produced in the record. On the other hand each piece of that informtion which was withheld could point directly at McCloy, as my research had shown by following this particular line of speculation.

While the Warren Commission make no reference to the "Raleigh Call" and the call was made to a name that John J. McCloy could be proveably associated with allows us, reasonably, to speculate that the withholding of this informaiton may be a key to proving the guilt of a person such as McCloy.

McCloy's failure to give Hosty's third note a Commission Exhibit Number (and the fact that this note has never been put on a JFK CIA documents record while Hosty's previous two notes made it into the hands of Richard Helms) leads me to speculate that the record of who had access to that information could well provide an answer to the biggest question, "Who was the big fish?"

The passenger lists from Oswald's travel from London to Helsinki was the beginning of my speculation into conspiracy. When I first read the Warren Commission Report I was totally unaware of the attempted assassination of Edwin Walker. I speculated on a motive which might, some how, be uncovered on why Oswald would have believed that Walker was the head of some evil organization and that his assassination would be a benifit to the world just as the assassination of Hitler in the 1930's would have been a benifit to the world. It took several years to discover that Walker was traveling in Euurope at the same time as Oswald but low and behold the passenger lists end up missing from the "official" inquiry into the assassination of JFK.

But there was another problem with this speculation about Oswwald's travel, Oswald was going to Helsinki and Walker was on his way to Augsburg, Germany (way to the South of Oswald's travel). Several years of speculation and I find that Oswald had appaently led his friend Delgado to believe that Oswald was going to Germany. Then I find that the day before Oswald lands in Helsinki the American Ambassador in Helsinki sends a message to the State Department giving a detailed account of how to obtain a visa into the Soviet Union via the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki. Oswald it seems, either coincidentally or with helps, follows this exact procedure and receives a visa within 24 hours. I also discover that Walker has been repeatedly used by General Maxwell Taylor to do specific jobs for him as well as at least three specific jobs that John J. McCloy had wanted done. Was it possible for Oswald and Walker to have been on the same airplane although they apparently had two very different destination. Walker would have traveled to either Hamburg or Frankfurt on his way to Augsburg, Germany. With research that has been reviewed by Chris Mills (and would not have been possible without the help of Antti Hynonen) we find that the most likely of the two planes that Oswald may have taken to Helsinki began the day in Frankfurt then traveled to Hamburg then Stockholm and finally to Helsinki. Further we find that there were flights from London to either Frankfurt or Hamburg which would have allowed London passengers to board the plane that would eventually end up in Stockholm.

Via speculation we can prove that it was possible for both Oswald and Walker to be on the same plane at the same time and it is a fact that the passenger lists were not provided to the Warren Commission investigators but we know, according to the support documents of the Warren Commissions work that Oswald spent $111.90 on travel that day (proving that available informaiton was withheld). This speculation gives cause for why Oswald, the patsy who had gone to the Soviet Union, would have believed, as he is alledged to have said, that Walker was the head of a very bad organization and needed to be eliminated.

Put on top of this Oswald's own words that he said in a speech at Spring Hill College. It was at Spring Hill that Oswald speaks about the failure of the Paris Summit, the U-2 incident and how there are powerful forces in both the Soviet Union and the United States that are willing to sabotage efforts at bringing the two countries together and we find a man that did truely believe that he had been made a patsy when he traveled to the Soviet Union, especially if he did actually reveil secrets that he beleived led to the downing of the U-2 and thus the failure of the Paris Summit. We can only speculate on the guilt that Oswald, a patsy, may have had to bare for any responsibility that he may have had in the events that unfolded after his defection to the Soviet Union.

Jim Root

Edited September 16, 2010 by Jim Root

[Peter McGuire]

"Any lone nutter making the claim that withholding evidence is indicative of guilt is shooting himself in the foot."

And opening the door for a floodgate of withheld evidence on the part of the government's Warren Commission.

Such as, Seymour Weitzman.

"The Commission would appear to have been informed a most important eyewitness to the event - a railroad employee who thought the shots came from the area behind the fence and who thought he saw a man throw something into the bushes when the President's car had passed.

However, just after Weitzman gave that information, Commission counsel said, “I think that's all, and Weitzman was dismissed.

He was not asked for the name or description of the employee. He was not asked if he looked into the bushes or if he found anything there.

Nothing in the 26 volumes of evidence or the Report indicates that the Commission or its investigators made any effort to locate or identify the railroad employee."

Duncan. If I may suggest that you actually read the Warren Report and the numerous work of researchers tearing that report apart and speak from some level - above JFK Assassination 101 at least , as someone has characterized most of the work here as.

Rush to Judgment page 27, Prologue..

Whether or not, Weitzam's testimony meant anything, the fact remains it was witheld

Edited September 16, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Jim Root]

Martin

You ask, "And how much evidence relating to the assassination did the US federal government withhold before the FOIA and the ARRB?"

I have no idea.

What I do know for a fact is that John J. McColy did not give Hosty's third note a Commission Exhibit number. I know for a fact that John Newman was able to follow the information trail attached to Hosty's previous two notes to prove that FBI Agent Hosty's information about Lee Harvey Oswald was going directly to Richard Helms prior to the assassination of JFK. While I can only speculate on who had access to Hosty's third note, because no one has seen it, it seems plausible to believe that Richard Helms had access to it just as he had access to the other two notes but but we know for a fact that this third note has never been listed as information that was ever in CIA files.

I do know for a fact that the Raleigh Call was never put into evidence in the Warrren Commission Report and I do know for a fact that during WWII a man named John B. Hurt was supplying extremely sensitive intelligence information directly to John J. McCloy. I also know for a fact that the work that John B. Hurt did between 1945 and his retirement in 1963 is still, to this day classified.

Thirdly I do know for a fact that the passenger list for Oswald's flight from London to Helsinki were also not entered into the Warren Commission Record while numerous inteviews were conducted with people that had riden on buses and boats or who had come into contact with Oswald in a variety of ways were interviewed. I also know for a fact that McCloy used passenger lists and travel logs to break the Black Tom (WWI espionage) Case and he was very familiar with the importance of passenger lists and how they can be used to prove involvement (in the Black Tom Case it was the involvement of the German Government). Yet he did not push for those passenger lists to be made available as he had done in the Black Tome Case.

Rather than attempting to shoot myself in the foot I am perhaps, at worst, taking a shot in the dark by suggesting that in three specific examples John J. McCloy was factually complicit in the withholding of information and in each of those three specific cases it can be shown that a direct link can be made between McCloy giving us reason to look at McCloy as a possible suspect because of the fact that this information was withheld from the American public.

Jim Root

Edited September 16, 2010 by Jim Root

[John Dolva]

By what means did the notes go from Hosty to Helms?