If Oswald didn't do it

[Jim Root]

John

It seems that the State Dept. would receive a copy of FBI reports as well as the Washington Office of the FBI and the local office that was keeping the file. If the file had been forwarded or was being requested the office that was sending or receiving the file would get a copy as well.

I believe it was the State Dept. file that was forwarded to Richard Helms. This was confirmed to John Newman by a former CIA routing secretary named Jane Roman when she was interviewed by John Newman and Jefferson Morley on November 2, 1994.

Article: "What Jane Roman Said"

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley3.htm

Of course the third Hosty note remains a mystery but we can assume that if it were found the routing on it could be deciphered as were the other two Hosty notes journey deciphered by Morley and Newman.

Jim Root

[Peter McGuire]

Yes. I didn't think Jim did either.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[John Dolva]

John

It seems that the State Dept. would receive a copy of FBI reports as well as the Washington Office of the FBI and the local office that was keeping the file. If the file had been forwarded or was being requested the office that was sending or receiving the file would get a copy as well.

I believe it was the State Dept. file that was forwarded to Richard Helms. This was confirmed to John Newman by a former CIA routing secretary named Jane Roman when she was interviewed by John Newman and Jefferson Morley on November 2, 1994.

Article: "What Jane Roman Said"

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley3.htm

Of course the third Hosty note remains a mystery but we can assume that if it were found the routing on it could be deciphered as were the other two Hosty notes journey deciphered by Morley and Newman.

Jim Root

Thank you Jim. My question actually is more like by what method / route/s did the notes take. I ask this from the perspective of Helms and Dulles (and I think Rockefeller from memory) alerted JE Day of the CIA illegal mail opening / interception programs and secured his compliance. Grunowski refused, but the testinony in the comittee to investigate this and other matters of the inteligence agencies, closely intertwined by the granddaddy of them all, the USPO PI Department, also indicated the mechanism whereby exposed programs merely morph or burrow deeper for a while only to emerge again but now in a different guise. Further, the Civil War split the USPO and was recombined after, the allegiance of various carriers may be an issue. Perhaps another way to put it is what in toto was the notes' chain of possession?

[Jim Root]

Martin

My point is to take a person that I beleive to be a knowledgable prosecutor and a person that has spent a great deal of time on researching the assassination, as a person who would prosecute Oswald would have done, and trying to look at what Bugliosi has said while attempting to provide examples of where what he says applies to another person.

For example Bugliosi's dealing with the Silvia Odio incident is masterful in my opinion. Bugliosi's position seems to fall right in line with Edwin Walkers research into the Warren Commission Report and those portions dealing with Silvia Odio. It is in this area that even Bugliosi leaves open the possibility that Oswald had a guiding hand that was leading him toward the TSBD building and that fateful date in history.

This is no minor consulation prize on the part of Bugliosi and begs me to believe that he is not a lost cause.

Jim Root

[Peter McGuire]

Why did whoever did it need a patsy?

What do you mean "If Oswald didn't do it?"

Of course he "didn't do it" if you mean was he the sole actor in the exposed conspiracy to kill a sitting president whose name was John F. Kennedy.

The United States Secret Service was in on it, and it does not matter who shot JFK.

What matters is who ordered the United States Secret Service to do such a thing.

http://handelsmessiahrocks.com/

Edited September 16, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Jim Feemster]

My guess is there were at least two more ' pasties ' waiting in the wings unknown to themselves. Count the three guns found, 1. Mauser, 2. 303 Enfield, 3. Carcano.

By chance if Oz had of been sitting in Truly's lap or have his arm around some other TSBD employee giving himself an airtight alibi, then shift to Frazier. After all Oz had no known motive so Frazier would not have had to have one either. The details could be filled in later as oZ's was, ie... bus transfer ticket, line up details, his ride home, curtain rods, wallet drop at Tippit scene,and on and on.

Oz was supposed to go down at the Texas Theater. Then as Bill Kelly said all selective evidence is produced and all other evidence withheld and few are suspious of the official story.

You have to have a patsy, a lone-nutter to deflect the investigation away from others. Who are " OTHERS " ? I don't know.

Who could have been a third potential patsy? I don't know.

There could have been someone going around town using Frazier's name, applying for work at Texas Employment Commission, speeding in cars up and down the highway saying he was to come into some money soon, but it would not have raised attention after the best patsy was declared.

The puppet masters can drop another character into the play as well as take one out.

Frazier could have been shot in a closet and the Enfield dropped in his lap. Case closed. Frazier,poor lonely boy living with relatives,shoots our president for unknow reasons. Cased closed.

Any guesess who a third patsy might have been.

Jim

[Peter McGuire]

That is also interesting stuff, Jim.

The smoking gun IS the United States Secret Service of 1963, and their inaction that goes beyond the pale.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Cliff Varnell]

Any guesess who a third patsy might have been.

Jim

My best guess: the three tramps.

Charles V. Harrelson had "patsy" written all over him, imo.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[John Dolva]

''the patsy'' was the threat of ''communism''. To deny the vote to US citizens and create sufficient diversion is a fragile social situation. If it had been a leftist assassin (which flies in the face of Engels writings on individual terrorism) then the US would have been able to exert an enormous pressure on the Soviet Union, so it wasn't. Had it been a right wing assassination in the name of anti communism you would be faced with a population who suddenly was presented with a new look at what socialism really is as Kennedy was in the Detente cycle. This would have been explosive to the very fabric of the US. The only option is to have everyone first looking the wrong way while getting the coverup in place and then to be disarmed or mollified by a finding of no conspiracy whatsoever.

edit add : perhaps an other way of putting it is that to do something so potentially explosive and to maintain a unity, no matter how fragile, the US public, to accept the disappearance of what many found a hope in, must at least in sufficient degree be in a state of doubt, while business goes on as usual, and aided by the well known reaction of most if not all humans to first externalise a problem, or at least be most comfortable in doing so: ie this is the role of a patsy, to be this focus.

Edited September 17, 2010 by John Dolva

[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."

Rush to Judgment page 27, Prologue..

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

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus."

The Report is untrue in this instance, ( a material ommission ) and likely untrue in everything contained in it.

I will not give the Report a second chance to lie.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[William Kelly]

Jim Root states a few important but often overlooked points, including the idea that the case for conspiracy doesn't necessitate multiple shooters, and that Lee Harvey Oswald can be perceived in the same light regardless of his role as either a lone shooter or a patsy.

Jim Root wrote, "A majority of the reasons that researchers give that would lead us to believe 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," Root writes, noting that, "I think it is fair to say that 'lone nutters' continue to believe the official version, that Oswald acted alone, therefore no conspiracy. 'Lone nutters' seem all too 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," continues Root, "it seems the 'holy grail' of conspiracy theorists 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," Jim Root writes, "pondering how a group of conspirators could have executed a plan so exact and precise that, to this day, it has allowed 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, even a lone shooter, or Oswald the "patsy," it is the perception of his role as a pawn in the Great Game, rather than a psychologically deranged loser, that is the dividing line and not whether there was more than one assassin, that is the key to continuing the inquiry further.

As Jim Root concludes, "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…"

The idea is that whether the assassin or a patsy, it wasn't necessary to "control" him, only to know his whereabouts. That Hosty knew and reported Oswald working at TSBD before the assassination, in an official letter/memo that no one today can account for, indicates that they knew this was an important point, and could not let it be known that their knowledge of Oswald's presence there was in their files before the assassination.

The case for conspiracy doesn't rest with a two shooter scenario.

BK

Edited September 21, 2010 by William Kelly

[Thomas Graves]

duplicate post

Edited September 21, 2010 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

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 theorists 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

Jim,

You make a good point in the sentence I took the liberty of highlighting in bold letters. The way I see it, the conspirators wanted the world to think that their shooter Oswald was either a) a/the shooter for a different group of conspirators (real or imaginary), or a patsy for that other group of conspirators.

--Thomas

Edited September 20, 2010 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

The question is: If Oswald didn't do it, why did whoever did it need a patsy?

Doesn't it seem odd that Oswald would go out of his way to ADMIT he was a "patsy" (someone easily fooled, swindled...etc)given who we know him to have been?

As opposed to simply saying he had no idea what was going on and that he did not shoot anyone?

–noun, plural -sies. Slang .

1. a person who is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded, etc.; sucker.

2. a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy.

3. a person who is the object of a joke, ridicule, or the like.

If Oswald DID do it HE'D need the patsy... or he'd be proud of the fact and want the notoriety like other assassins of our time

If Oswald DID do it.. announcing himself a patsy begs the question, "for who?" and deflects some of the blame immediately - reasonable doubt - that at least required investigation.

If OSWALD DID do it... and he had no way of influencing the evidence... all the evidence would ultimately point to him... not to example after example of evidence tampering, destruction, creation, etc...

We absolutely must assume that if Oswald DID NOT DO IT, those who organized and implemented it had to be as close to 100% confident they would not be identified or investigated in any realistic timeframe

Option 1 - Kill Oswald 11/22/63 and tell the story as it needs to be told with supporting evidence.

Option 2 - Kill Oswald ASAP and tell the story as it needs to be told

Option 3 - No option #3... the patsy must die, because HE DID NOT DO IT.

If he actually did it there's no need for a patsy... and the tautology continues round and round.

Duncan, you keep going back to the word NEED.

A scenario in which those that planned it/did it would NOT need a patsy...

"Unknown assailants shoot the president and escape"

if the motivation behind JFK's death had to do with fighting the spread of communism and the perception JFK was losing that fight... how could we hold our heads up as a leading nation if we could not even find out who killed the president? if we would not show the world how we'd uncover every rock and investigate every lead to find the killer(s).

In the initial weeks, finding the killer, arresting him and convicting him was paramount for the charade but not really the plan... Oswald, the patsy had to die. All "official" evidence and documentation supports this conclusion. History is made neat and easy to digest.

Asking why "they" needed a patsy is like asking a magician why he needed to misdirect your sight while making his trick work... because the trick does not work any other way.

I am speculating here - I believe "The Trick" would not have worked without someone to focus the attention upon. Who "They" are, as you've said... will be pure speculation for quite some time imo....

[Thomas Graves]

The question is: If Oswald didn't do it, why did whoever did it need a patsy?

Doesn't it seem odd that Oswald would go out of his way to ADMIT he was a "patsy" (someone easily fooled, swindled...etc) given who we know him to have been? (emphasis added by Thomas Graves)

As opposed to simply saying he had no idea what was going on and that he did not shoot anyone?

–noun, plural -sies. Slang .

1. a person who is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded, etc.; sucker.

2. a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy.

3. a person who is the object of a joke, ridicule, or the like.

If Oswald DID do it HE'D need the patsy... or he'd be proud of the fact and want the notoriety like other assassins of our time

If Oswald DID do it.. announcing himself a patsy begs the question, "for who?" and deflects some of the blame immediately - reasonable doubt - that at least required investigation.

If OSWALD DID do it... and he had no way of influencing the evidence... all the evidence would ultimately point to him... not to example after example of evidence tampering, destruction, creation, etc...

We absolutely must assume that if Oswald DID NOT DO IT, those who organized and implemented it had to be as close to 100% confident they would not be identified or investigated in any realistic timeframe

Option 1 - Kill Oswald 11/22/63 and tell the story as it needs to be told with supporting evidence.

Option 2 - Kill Oswald ASAP and tell the story as it needs to be told

Option 3 - No option #3... the patsy must die, because HE DID NOT DO IT.

If he actually did it there's no need for a patsy... and the tautology continues round and round.

Duncan, you keep going back to the word NEED.

A scenario in which those that planned it/did it would NOT need a patsy...

"Unknown assailants shoot the president and escape"

if the motivation behind JFK's death had to do with fighting the spread of communism and the perception JFK was losing that fight... how could we hold our heads up as a leading nation if we could not even find out who killed the president? if we would not show the world how we'd uncover every rock and investigate every lead to find the killer(s).

In the initial weeks, finding the killer, arresting him and convicting him was paramount for the charade but not really the plan... Oswald, the patsy had to die. All "official" evidence and documentation supports this conclusion. History is made neat and easy to digest.

Asking why "they" needed a patsy is like asking a magician why he needed to misdirect your sight while making his trick work... because the trick does not work any other way.

I am speculating here - I believe "The Trick" would not have worked without someone to focus the attention upon. Who "They" are, as you've said... will be pure speculation for quite some time imo....

David,

What or who do we know Oswald to have been? Just curious...

--Thomas

Edited September 21, 2010 by Thomas Graves