Larry Hancock on Oswald being a patsy

[Douglas Caddy]

Larry Hancock writes on his current blog about Oswald being a patsy:

http://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/patsy/

I’m speeding up the frequency of this “Connecting the Dots” series in order to wrap it up next week and build up my energy for the Dallas conference and experience. After that I’ll be turning my attention to the issue of Shadow Warfare, which is still on target for availability at the first of the year if not a bit earlier – I might even have a first galley copy in Dallas.

But to the point here, one of the things that amazes me with the current explosion in commentary on the assassination, the option that Oswald was a patsy in the assassination receives virtually no mention. That despite the fact that he declared himself a patsy – undercutting the only plausible motive ever mentioned, a search for fame and notoriety - and that neither the Warren Commission nor anyone else ever established a credible motive for him, especially with his record of prior supportive remarks about President Kennedy. Its almost as if the people offering comments to the media feel that even considering that possiblity might start a slide towards actually examining a more complex scenario that would require some re-examination of the data – which of course would mean real engagement with new information – and potentially lots of time and work. Its probably just easier to say you are going to keep and open mind on the subject… that certainly requires less energy.

Up to this point I’ve presented data that suggests Oswald, in his pro Cuba/pro Castro activities, had become visible and “identifiable” with a particular cause in New Orleans during the summer of 1963. We also looked at data suggesting that information about Oswald’s travels and his background was circulating in Miami and that Oswald had been observed in touch with individuals who would be considered both subversive and a potential threat to President Kennedy by the FBI. The question is, do we know anything more about such people. The answer, given the apparent destruction of relevant records in the possession of both the FBI and Secret Service is – not likely. However, we do have two separate anecdotal sources that do provide information, independently of each other. I will present their information below, analysis and context supporting each as a credible source is in SWHT and other places such as the work of Dick Russell and Tony Summers.

John Martino’s information was provided to the HSCA, which with other of its information such as questions about David Morales simply did not have the context of information to properly evaluate or pursue it. I’ve talked with HSCA investigators and they can only express the frustration that they did not know what we have learned in later years. Basically Martino tells us that he served as a courier in the conspiracy to attack JFK, carrying money and information to Dallas. His knowledge of the overall operation was extremely limited, but he stated that Cuban exiles had contacted Oswald in New Orleans, maintained contact with him and manipulated him as a patsy. Despite Martino’s own early public attempts to tie Oswald to Castro, and promote American retaliation, I’m told that when at home, when hearing a news about the assassination over the following years, he would only remark that Oswald was nothing more than a “patsy”.

Independently of Martino’s private remarks and even the HSCA memorandums, which did not become available for many years, Dick Russell researched the story of Richard Case Nagell, who had himself written privately to Congressmen concerning the assassination and Cuban exile manipulation of Oswald as a patsy. Nagell’s story is far more complex than Martino’s and much harder to follow unless you expend a huge amount of time and study, which most people who comment lightly on it have not. However what is quite noteworthy about Nagell’s information is that he describes his personal contact with Oswald in New Orleans and the Cuban exile maneuvering of Oswald relating to something that was supposed to happen in the Washington D.C. area in September – but which aborted. The Oswald letters to CPUSA and SWP, and other corroborative material – both from the early FBI questioning of Marina Oswald and the oral history interview of the young woman helping Marina pack to move to the Paines – did not emerge for decades, even then being something seen by a few hard core researchers. It certainly seems that Nagell’s early correspondance and private remarks about the aborted DC incident seem to be well validated by Oswald’s own documented actions.

There are several other data points indicating that Oswald was known to and in contact with this particular set of individuals, who first became aware of him in New Orleans. And the upshot of all the information provided portrays Oswald as being literally nothing more than a patsy in an eventual attack on the President, someone whose profile will point the crime towards Cuba and Castro – which of course it ultimately did. I have a copy of a San Antonio newspaper from Nov 23 with the huge headline “Castro Supporter Shoots President”. However, for other reasons, such headlines hardly outlasted the weekend.

The people considering using Oswald as a patsy were monitoring Oswald’s movements, his travels, they knew when he arrived in Dallas and contacted him there. There is every reason to think they knew were he worked and most likely had him under surveillance. And framing him was not really going to be that hard, if they could plant a single piece of obvious evidence – such a gun connected to him – at or near the scene of the attack on the President, given Oswald’s profile, he was going to take the fall for conspiracy. Martino even commented that Oswald was not the shooter. There was no reason that Oswald needed to be the shooter or to even know what was coming down. Ultimately, with a rifle traceable to him in the TSBD, he was going to be positioned as part of a conspiracy, and the conspiracy would be a Cuban/Communist one.

Of course that was the view of the people “playing” Oswald but they could control matters only up to the time of the attack…. In the next couple of posts I’ll try to work this chain a bit further but I’m betting its not a conversation or scenario you will be seeing on any of the some 30 anniversary specials coming out or in the media interviews on the subject.

______________________________________________________________________

Larry Hancock is both a skilled researcher and talented writer. I concur with his analysis above.

This is what I wrote in the forum on October 28, 2013 in response to a question from Thomas Graves:

I have never held myself out to be an expert on the Kennedy assassination. My depth of knowledge is not great in contrast to many of the true experts in the forum who have a detailed grasp of the topic, such as William Kelly, James Richards, Pat Speer and Robert Morrow, to single out only four among many forum members whose credibility is recognized.

Based on what I have learned and do know, my answer to your question is no. I think it was a well thought out conspiracy to kill the President and Oswald was groomed to be the patsy, the fall guy.

As I wrote in a prior forum topic some time ago, at the time of the assassination I was working in the New York City office of Governor Nelson Rockefeller on the staff of Lt.-Gov. Malcolm Wilson. I received a phone call from a close friend who was a fellow night school student at NYU Law School and who worked on Wall Street. He told me breathlessly that his teletype machine had just reported the assassination. After conferring with Lt.-Gov. Wilson I walked through the five story townhouse at 22 West 55^th Street that was the Governor’s private office and alerted the staff to what had happened in Dallas. Most I talked to uttered no word. They just looked shocked and for a moment or so may have thought I had lost my mind. At a political dinner the next night I sat next to a mutual friend of the Lt.-Gov. who was about to ascend to the bench as a judge. He predicted to me that Oswald would be killed soon because whatever he knew or did not know would be explosive and would open the door to the actual conspirators. He said it was obvious Oswald was a patsy. Two days later Oswald was killed.

Those who were politically sophisticated realized immediately that there was much more behind the assassination of JFK, just as those who were politically sophisticated believed there was much more behind the arrests of five burglars at Watergate nine years later.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=9e7c976311faba36e9c2ec1a2d06ec5a&showtopic=20587