Did Oswald Practice Tradecraft?

[Len Colby]

Two complete distortions of two important books. By two irresponsible writers.

The two Oswalds thesis is the overall thesis of Harvey and Lee. This DOES NOT MEAN that everything else relies upon or is subservient to it. That is just malarkey that reveals that Colby never read the book. I mentioned areas in the book that do not rely on this at all e.g. episodes on the ordering of the rifle and revolver and much of Mexico City which is the longest chapter in the book , over 100 pages. Having read the book, I understand the parts of it that do rely on the Two Oswalds--and it is those parts of the book that I find not altogether convincing. THe episodes I mentioned above and the theses that Armstorng makes of them e.g. that Oswald did not pick up the rifle or revolver, and that he never did the things the CIA said he did in Mexico CIty, I find quite bracing.

And in which section did Armstrong present the evidence that Harvey or Lee was a CIA agent?

But as Newman notes: defection is legal but espionage, like giving up the secrets to the U-2, is not. (pgs 49-50) So the comparison was faulty. In fact, when Egerter finally opened Oswald's 201 file, the defection was noted, but his knowledge of the U-2 wasn't.

What evidence is there he had particularly sensitive info or that he passed it to the Soviets?

[Greg Parker]

Did I say he was an evil spook?

No David, you did not state explicitly that he was an evil spook. But if he was doing spy-work up to the time of his death, as you asserted above, and that work was somehow legitimate, then his failure to say so to the police, FBI & Secret Service while he was being interrogated seems inexplicable.

Ray,

sorry to jump in on a question directed elsewhere.... but he told Inspector Kelley of the Secret Service that he would talk to him when he had legal representation. Straight after that, he was led to his execution.

If you believe he was a spy, can you please tell us on whose behalf he was working, what his mission was, and the EVIDENCE that led you to this belief?

At the time he was organizing his trip to Moscow, Bissell issued a memo ordering that operations inside the Soviet Union be increased.

At the time he attended Snyder's office to "defect", a CIA agent recruited by Snyder at Harvard just happened to be present. His specialty was Russian language, history and culture, making him ideal to advise a would-be defector on what to expect living in the Russia.

At the time he began subscribing to Soviet newspapers, new laws were being enacted in regard to receiving such literature, requiring the receiver to acknowledge that they really really do want to receive it. This got your name on a government list.

Within a week of the FBI issuing a memo acknowledging that the FPCC was no longer under CPUSA or SWP influence, Oswald began writing to the the CPUSA and SWP about the FPCC which at face value, had the effect of (re)linking the 3 entities.

If you want to call all of these things mere happenstance, that is your prerogative, but that would be an awkward stance to defend.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If you want to call all of these things mere happenstance, that is your prerogative, but that would be an awkward stance to defend.

Nothing awkward about this from where I sit, Greg. Lee Oswald was living in America, a country where freedom of expression and freedom of the press are guaranteed by the constitution.

His comments to SS man Kelley were simply the actions of a prudent man. When you are falsely accused, don't say anything to the cops until you have been advised by counsel, because anything you say can be used against you.

I would say exactly the same thing if I were in his shoes. Does that make me a spy?

[Greg Parker]

If you want to call all of these things mere happenstance, that is your prerogative, but that would be an awkward stance to defend.

Nothing awkward about this from where I sit, Greg. Lee Oswald was living in America, a country where freedom of expression and freedom of the press are guaranteed by the constitution.

Freedom of expression is peripheral to this - and arguable that it was conditional freedom, anyway, when you have to inform your government that you do wish to receive legal publications. But let's not change the subject. I take it, what you are really trying to say, without actually saying it, is that you are comfortable in calling all of these episodes, no more than coincidences (piled on coincidence).

His comments to SS man Kelley were simply the actions of a prudent man. When you are falsely accused, don't say anything to the cops until you have been advised by counsel, because anything you say can be used against you.

But he'd already been talking for about 12 hours. And why does an innocent man need to be prudent, anyway?

This was different, Ray. Kelley was asking him to confide all that he knew - above and beyond what he'd said in that 12 hours so far - and Oswald agreed - once he had counsel.

His "prudence" with Kelley suddenly appeared because it WASN'T the cops he would be talking to - and it wouldn't be the game playing that his interrogations had thus far involved. With Kelley, it was going to be something resembling the truth. Counsel was needed to advise just how much of that truth could be discussed. It sealed his fate. But I guess that's just another coincidence in a long long list of them, in your eyes. You, so far at least, just can't bring yourself to say it. I'll make it easy, Ray. I'll write the sentence; you just have to agree with it. Ready? Here we go: "All of the points raised which may look like the actions of someone in the intelligence mileu, are actually nothing but coincidences"

I would say exactly the same thing if I were in his shoes. Does that make me a spy?

Why? Again, what has an innocent man with no relevant information got to hide? And what has he got to admit to the Secret Service after playing cat and mouse with the DPD?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

But he'd already been talking for about 12 hours.

But not by his own choice, and all the time asking to exercise his legal right to have an attorney present.

And why does an innocent man need to be prudent, anyway?

Why don't you put that question to the nineteen (the number will increase) innocent men who spent a combined 300 years or so in prison after being falsely accused by the Dallas police and DA's office during the tenure of Henry Wade and his protege.

This was different, Ray. Kelley was asking him to confide all that he knew - above and beyond what he'd said in that 12 hours so far - and Oswald agreed - once he had counsel.

Right. He indicated that he would be happy to talk to the SS once he had an opportunity to confer with counsel, exactly as I would have done.

His "prudence" with Kelley suddenly appeared because it WASN'T the cops he would be talking to

Everyone here knows that Oz told TV cameras, the few chances he got, that he wanted an attorney, so please don't pretend that this was something he just came up with for Kelley's benefit.

And what has he got to admit to the Secret Service after playing cat and mouse with the DPD?

You've got it ass-backwards, Greg. It was the cops who were playing cat & mouse with him. And Kelley never claimed that Oz promised to ADMIT anything. You just imagined that.

This faith-based anti-Oz prejudice would be funny if it wasn't tragic.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

In fact, as Lisa Pease discovered, the Communist party in Texas strongly suspected Oswald was a phony and was really a CIA agent.

Is it not a crying shame that the SUSPICIONS of the Communist party in Texas are not universally regarded as Gospel truth.

I believe Lee Oswald said he was a Marxist, but not a Communist (Marxist-Leninist)

[J. Raymond Carroll]

You are one heck of an incurious investigator.

My curiosity about Lee Oswald has long ago been satisfied, since I don't have the slightest doubt that he was and remains falsely accused (and I include Jim Garrison among the false accusers).

But I think it is way past time for people to get curious about who killed JFK.

[Don Jeffries]

Ray, your perspective on this case is nearly as incomprehensible as Tom Purvis' is. You are chastising, with your usual patented crankiness, people who have spent much of their lives working to expose the fact that Oswald didn't shoot anyone on November 22, 1963. Then you adopt the mantle of Oswald's true defender, as you quote the Dallas Police-FBI-Warren Commission lone Marxist mantra. Explain Oswald's hassle-free readmission to the USA, with his Russian bride included, at the height of the Cold War, in innocent terms. Explain this "Marxist's" close friendship with someone like George DeMohrenschildt.

If your past is similar to Oswald's, then everyone who knows you must think you're some kind of intelligence agent, too. I believe I asked you this on another thread, but I'll try again. Please explain how Oswald could have been a totally unattached bystander, just your average minimum wage-earning working stiff, who happened to be blamed for the assassination of JFK? Who framed him? Why him?

FYI, like many here, I suspect, I don't believe that Oswald was a willing party to the assassination. Like Jim Garrison, I think he was on assignment at the time of the assassination, infiltrating what he was told was a potential plot to kill JFK. You've heard Garrison's quote, I'm sure, where he referred to Oswald as a "true American hero." He wasn't accusing Oswald of anything other than being inadvertently set up as a patsy. Yet you continue to infer that Garrison was somehow out to "get" Oswald.

Like Garrison, I tend to think of Oswald as some kind of hero as well. The question is; why are you persisting in this bizarre game whereby you accuse those of us who have passionately defended his innocence in the actual assassination of somehow being anti-Oswald?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

You've heard Garrison's quote, I'm sure, where he referred to Oswald as a "true American hero." He wasn't accusing Oswald of anything other than being inadvertently set up as a patsy. Yet you continue to infer that Garrison was somehow out to "get" Oswald.

Don: Garrison spoke with forked tongue.

I suggest you read carefully his opening statement at the trial of Clay Shaw and remember, as an officer of the court, Garrison was UNDER OATH when he made these FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST LEE OSWALD:

The defendant, CLAY L, SHAW, is charged in a bill of indictment with having willfully and unlawfully conspired with DAVID W, FERRIE, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and others to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY.

The crime of criminal conspiracy is to find in the Criminal Code of Louisiana as follows:

"CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

"Criminal conspiracy is the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime; provided that an agreement or combination to commit a crime shall not amount to a criminal conspiracy unless, in addition to such agreement or combination, one or more of such parties does an act in furtherance of the object of the agreement or combination."

As required by the definition of criminal conspiracy, the State will prove the following overt acts:

1. A meeting of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, DAVID W. FERRIE and the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, in the apartment of DAVID W. FERRIE at 3330 Louisiana Avenue parkway in the City of New Orleans during the month of September, 1963.

2. Discussion by OSWALD, FERRIE and the defendant, SHAW of means and methods of execution of the conspiracy with regard to assassination of JOHN F. KENNEDY -- particularly, the selection and use of rifles to be fired from multiple directions simultaneously to produce a triangulation of crossfire, establishing and selecting the means and routes of escape from the assassination scene, determination of procedures and the places to be used for some of the principals to the conspiracy so as to establish alibis on the date of the assassination.

3. A "trip to the West Coast of the United States by CLAY L. SHAW during the month of November, 1963.

4. A trip by DAVIhttp://www.jfk-online.com/state.htmlD W. FERRIE from New Orleans, Louisiana to Houston, Texas on the day of November 22, 1963.

5. LEE HARVEY OSWALD taking a rifle to the Texas Book Depository in Dallas, Texas on or before November 22, 1963.

http://www.jfk-online.com/state.html

Note: "TO FIND" should read "DEFINED."

Edited October 18, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Greg Parker]

But he'd already been talking for about 12 hours.

But not by his own choice, and all the time asking to exercise his legal right to have an attorney present.

I see. So they used torture to get him to speak?

Except of course when he would refuse to answer. Oswald KNEW his rights. He chose when to and when not to excercise them .

And why does an innocent man need to be prudent, anyway?

Why don't you put that question to the nineteen (the number will increase) innocent men who spent a combined 300 years or so in prison after being falsely accused by the Dallas police and DA's office during the tenure of Henry Wade and his protege.

So Oswald knew about these 19 innocent men and decided to be "prudent" - except that he wasn't all that prudent for the first 12 hours of interrogations; only deciding to adopt that stance with the one person who sounded like he might actually listen and take seriously anything Oswald might say , and hadn't alreeady said ? Is that your theory?

This was different, Ray. Kelley was asking him to confide all that he knew - above and beyond what he'd said in that 12 hours so far - and Oswald agreed - once he had counsel.

Right. He indicated that he would be happy to talk to the SS once he had an opportunity to confer with counsel, exactly as I would have done.

You would have talked for 12 hours picking and choosing which questions to answer, which to refuse to answer and which to obfuscate on without advice from counsel - and then agree to talk to the Secret Service away from the DPD once you have counsel? Okay. I just don't think an innocent man could possibly have anything to say except offer a denial and an alibi. Hardly anything Oswald needed advice on.

His "prudence" with Kelley suddenly appeared because it WASN'T the cops he would be talking to

Everyone here knows that Oz told TV cameras, the few chances he got, that he wanted an attorney, so please don't pretend that this was something he just came up with for Kelley's benefit.

Well, you're half way there. It was something he came up with for Kelley AS A REQUIREMENT BEFORE HE WOULD SPEAK TO HIM. He did not make that a requirement prior to speaking to the DPD and FBI. See the difference?

And what has he got to admit to the Secret Service after playing cat and mouse with the DPD?

You've got it ass-backwards, Greg. It was the cops who were playing cat & mouse with him.

Takes two to play that game, Ray.

And Kelley never claimed that Oz promised to ADMIT anything. You just imagined that.

From Kelley' interrogation report:

"I approached Oswald then and, out of the hearing of the others except perhaps one Captain Fritz's men, said that as a Secret Service agent, we are anxious to talk with him as soon as he had secured counsel; that we were responsible for the safety of the President; that the Dallas Police had charged him with the assassination of the President but that he had denied it; we were therefore very anxious to talk to him to make certain that the correct story was developing as it related to the assassination. He said that he would be glad to discuss this proposition with his attorney and that after he talked to one, we could either discuss it with him or discuss it with his attorney, if the attorney thought it was the wise thing to do, but that at the present time he had nothing more to say to me.

Oswald promised he would discuss giving "the correct story as it related to the assassination". Someone with zero knowledge could not do that.

This faith-based anti-Oz prejudice would be funny if it wasn't tragic.

This painting everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush is beyond tragic. It's Lone Nut Territory. And I don't rely on faith for anything.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

And I don't rely on faith for anything. [/color]

That was a clever idea, Greg, getting David Von Pein to write your stuff for you

[David Andrews]

Ray, can you tell us in two brief paragraphs how Oz is not a spook and how he was made the patsy? For brevity, you can go with informed but unsourced "suspicions," as I did.

Edited October 18, 2010 by David Andrews

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, can you tell us in two brief paragraphs how Oz is not a spook

and how he was made the patsy?

The patsy question would require 50 pages at least. As for the spook question, all I can say in a few words is that no one has ever offered credible evidence to support such a theory. Maybe evidence will come to light in the future, but for now believers in the theory are relying on BLIND FAITH. Jim Garrison was the first public promoter of the theory, and the Garrison cult continues to poison JFK research.

[David Andrews]

Didn't Mark Lane first peg Oz as a spook in Rush to Judgment?

Edited October 18, 2010 by David Andrews

[B. A. Copeland]

Did Oswald intentionally, four times within the hour of the assassination, practice this particular tradecraft of backtracking, passing one's destination and going back to it from the opposite direction and quickly "whirl around" and change directions on more than one occasion in the hour after the assassination?

BK

Bill: If Lee Oswald was a spy, as you seem to be suggesting, there would be some evidence. In Norman Mailer's book, which I am sure you have read, the KGB who monitored his every move were constantly amazed by his wanderings around Minsk. He would stop at a shop window, then turn around, then turn around again, with no apparent destination in mind. He was not evading the KGB, because they were easily able to keep track of him, but he was a peripatetic individual. If he was a spy, he would have been paid for his work.

I am not a Warren Commission defender, but I do believe that David Lifton's friend Wesley Liebeler was an honest man, and Liebeler tracked down every dime that Oz made & spent, and found no evidence that Oz had income that was unaccounted for. THe idea that was a secret agent for anyone is simply unsupported by any credible evidence. His meanderings were no more suspicious than my own.

I honestly cannot believe such beliefs are still floating around. I mean I figured with the writers DiEugenio mentioned....it takes much GREATER faith to believe Oswald was not in some way, shape or form, some kind of operative. One cannot honestly look at the entire JFK Murder (with an intellectually honest mindset) and conclude honestly that Oswald was not some kind of spy or operative. With Garrison's investigations, he probably had good reason to believe Oswald was an agent. We shouldn't dismiss it as crazy.