Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?

[Thomas Graves]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up?

By "cover-up" I mean acts intended to blur or conceal or falsify the facts of the assassination. Acts performed post-assassination.

By "set-up" I mean acts intended to implicate falsely Marina's husband ("Oswald", or if you prefer, "Harvey") as the killer of JFK. Acts performed pre-assassination.

I define the terms "cover-up" and "set-up" in order to facilitate an exchange of ideas. If you don't like my definitions and want to use "cover-up" or "set-up" to mean other than the meaning I've given, please provide your own definition, so that back-and-forth may remain rational and focused.

I do not know the answer to the question I pose. I do know this, however: [1] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, not all those involved in the cover-up necessarily had foreknowledge of or complicity in the assassination. [2] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, every individual who knowingly and voluntarily participated in or otherwise facilitated the set-up committed conspiracy to murder JFK. [3] If the set-up and cover-up were not distinct, they were not distinct for one of four reasons: [a] Either there was no set-up. Or there was no cover-up. [c] Or there was neither a set-up nor a cover-up. [d] Or there were both a set-up and a cover-up, under common control, that were intended to be parts of a single plan.

The reason I don't know the answer to the question I pose is that I'm not sure there was a set-up the way I've defined it. I'm not sure because [a] I don't know the truth about Oswald's actions leading up to the assassination; and I don't know the truth about the physical items used to implicate Oswald.

Here's how I lean, I lean toward believing whatever Oswald did, he did for his own reasons. I lean toward believing Oswald, like almost anyone, was capable of being influenced -- not in his reasoning but in the assumptions on which he acted. I lean toward believing the Mannlicher-Carcanno in the National Archives was not found in the TSBD. I lean toward believing the backyard photos were created post-assassination. So, according to my own definitions, I tend to lean toward there having been a cover-up but no set-up.

This is a somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion to me. It doesn't feel right. It allocates to the cover-up all post-assassination acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely in the murder of JFK. In particular, it allocates to the cover-up acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely that were performed between the time of JFK's murder and the time of Oswald's arrest. These acts may include the murder of J.D. Tippit and the police broadcast of a Robert-Webster-like description.

I resolve my lack of satisfaction this way: It's possible Oswald was not set up as I've defined set-up; i.e., was not set up pre-assassination to take the fall. It's possible Oswald through his own voluntary acts simply made himself into an ideal patsy. And it's possible there was a criminal conspiracy to implicate him in JFK's (and possibly also in J.D. Tippit's) murder that commenced immediately following JFK's murder. Such a conspiracy could have worked in parallel to the cover-up, which began quickly and which certainly served the purpose of any such a conspiracy, but which was not part of such conspiracy.

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Dear Mr. Jon G. Tidd,

I think that's an excellent question, Jon.

Fast-forwarding here to a recent exchange we had on the difference between being set up and being framed, couldn't the setting up of Oswald as the patsy have involved his being framed, after the fact, by the manipulation and distribution of his legend? And couldn't that have led seamlessly to the cover up?

--Tommy

Edited March 27, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up?

By "cover-up" I mean acts intended to blur or conceal or falsify the facts of the assassination. Acts performed post-assassination.

By "set-up" I mean acts intended to implicate falsely Marina's husband ("Oswald", or if you prefer, "Harvey") as the killer of JFK. Acts performed pre-assassination.

I define the terms "cover-up" and "set-up" in order to facilitate an exchange of ideas. If you don't like my definitions and want to use "cover-up" or "set-up" to mean other than the meaning I've given, please provide your own definition, so that back-and-forth may remain rational and focused.

I do not know the answer to the question I pose. I do know this, however: [1] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, not all those involved in the cover-up necessarily had foreknowledge of or complicity in the assassination. [2] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, every individual who knowingly and voluntarily participated in or otherwise facilitated the set-up committed conspiracy to murder JFK. [3] If the set-up and cover-up were not distinct, they were not distinct for one of four reasons: [a] Either there was no set-up. Or there was no cover-up. [c] Or there was neither a set-up nor a cover-up. [d] Or there were both a set-up and a cover-up, under common control, that were intended to be parts of a single plan.

The reason I don't know the answer to the question I pose is that I'm not sure there was a set-up the way I've defined it. I'm not sure because [a] I don't know the truth about Oswald's actions leading up to the assassination; and I don't know the truth about the physical items used to implicate Oswald.

Here's how I lean, I lean toward believing whatever Oswald did, he did for his own reasons. I lean toward believing Oswald, like almost anyone, was capable of being influenced -- not in his reasoning but in the assumptions on which he acted. I lean toward believing the Mannlicher-Carcanno in the National Archives was not found in the TSBD. I lean toward believing the backyard photos were created post-assassination. So, according to my own definitions, I tend to lean toward there having been a cover-up but no set-up.

This is a somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion to me. It doesn't feel right. It allocates to the cover-up all post-assassination acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely in the murder of JFK. In particular, it allocates to the cover-up acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely that were performed between the time of JFK's murder and the time of Oswald's arrest. These acts may include the murder of J.D. Tippit and the police broadcast of a Robert-Webster-like description.

I resolve my lack of satisfaction this way: It's possible Oswald was not set up as I've defined set-up; i.e., was not set up pre-assassination to take the fall. It's possible Oswald through his own voluntary acts simply made himself into an ideal patsy. And it's possible there was a criminal conspiracy to implicate him in JFK's (and possibly also in J.D. Tippit's) murder that commenced immediately following JFK's murder. Such a conspiracy could have worked in parallel to the cover-up, which began quickly and which certainly served the purpose of any such a conspiracy, but which was not part of such conspiracy.

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Dear Mr. Tidd,

That's an excellent question.

Fast-forwarding here to a recent exchange we had on the difference between being set up and being framed, couldn't the setting up of Oswald as the patsy have involved his being framed, after the fact, by the manipulation and distribution of his legend? And couldn't that have led seamlessly to the cover up?

--Tommy

Bumped in a probably-futile attempt to keep from being banished.

LOL(?)

PS I guess the bad guys were just really fortunate to have a pissed off dishonorably-discharged undesirably-discharged ex-Marine (all Marines are, by definition, good marksmen), prone-to-violence, itinerant, minimum wage earning, Marxist, former "defector" to Russia, married-to-a-Russian, Kostikov-connected, pro-Castro demonstrator already working in the TSBD for a few weeks when JFK's motorcade drove by -- you know, to frame for the assassination, after the fact.

Talk about serendipity. They must have been beside themselves with joy for the great good luck they'd fallen into. I mean, Oswald was so easy to finger (because he was an Odd Duck) and to frame (because he was an Odd Duck) and worked out so much better than, say, Jack Dougherty or Billy Lovelady or Joe Molina would have, didn't he.

But was he set up, in advance, as the patsy?

Heavens no. It was all just ... just ..... coincidental.

LOL

--Tommy

Edited March 30, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Mark Knight]

Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?

That's the title of this diary. I asked the question in order to sharpen my thinking on the assassination. I don't give a rip here whether John Armstrong is right or wrong. The question goes to facts, not the interpretation of facts.

I'm of a mind that Oswald was being closely watched (notice the vague passive voice) in 1963. And that he was so good at playing a role that could be labeled "lone nut" or "commie", take your choice, no one had to set him up.

Many here believe [a] Oswald was an intelligence agent, and Oswald was set up to take the fall. This is conventional wisdom.

The truth about the JFK assassination is not to be found in conventional wisdom. The hit on JFK was planned very carefully. Those who offed JFK were sure of the cover-up. Only by accepting these premises, in my opinion, can one find the one path to truth.

Jon, I think that perhaps Oswald wasn't being "directed"...but that he was hearing "suggestions," and acting on them. Maybe he wasn't taking orders, but was getting generalized "suggestions," and fleshing out the details himself. I don't beieve he was actually an "agent" taking orders. I believe maybe he WANTED to be an agent.

I also think that there's value to Terry's suggestion that perhaps Oswald was sent to the TSBD to observe...to be a "rat." And because of his personality, he wasn't as secretive perhaps as an informant should've been. Now, once a "rat" is uncovered, the standard is to find a way to throw them "under the bus," and neutralize the "rat." If the "rat" is busy defending himself for a capital crime, it's pretty hard for him to be effective in spilling the beans on lesser offenses. I'm starting to believe more and more that Oswald was Hosty's informant, and when the assassination went down, he was neutralized...in a BIG way. And I don't think it mattered whether he was a commie or a lone nut, his life was essentially over when he was taken out of the Texas Theater.

Bump...

[Thomas Graves]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up?

By "cover-up" I mean acts intended to blur or conceal or falsify the facts of the assassination. Acts performed post-assassination.

By "set-up" I mean acts intended to implicate falsely Marina's husband ("Oswald", or if you prefer, "Harvey") as the killer of JFK. Acts performed pre-assassination.

I define the terms "cover-up" and "set-up" in order to facilitate an exchange of ideas. If you don't like my definitions and want to use "cover-up" or "set-up" to mean other than the meaning I've given, please provide your own definition, so that back-and-forth may remain rational and focused.

I do not know the answer to the question I pose. I do know this, however: [1] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, not all those involved in the cover-up necessarily had foreknowledge of or complicity in the assassination. [2] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, every individual who knowingly and voluntarily participated in or otherwise facilitated the set-up committed conspiracy to murder JFK. [3] If the set-up and cover-up were not distinct, they were not distinct for one of four reasons: [a] Either there was no set-up. Or there was no cover-up. [c] Or there was neither a set-up nor a cover-up. [d] Or there were both a set-up and a cover-up, under common control, that were intended to be parts of a single plan.

The reason I don't know the answer to the question I pose is that I'm not sure there was a set-up the way I've defined it. I'm not sure because [a] I don't know the truth about Oswald's actions leading up to the assassination; and I don't know the truth about the physical items used to implicate Oswald.

Here's how I lean, I lean toward believing whatever Oswald did, he did for his own reasons. I lean toward believing Oswald, like almost anyone, was capable of being influenced -- not in his reasoning but in the assumptions on which he acted. I lean toward believing the Mannlicher-Carcanno in the National Archives was not found in the TSBD. I lean toward believing the backyard photos were created post-assassination. So, according to my own definitions, I tend to lean toward there having been a cover-up but no set-up.

This is a somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion to me. It doesn't feel right. It allocates to the cover-up all post-assassination acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely in the murder of JFK. In particular, it allocates to the cover-up acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely that were performed between the time of JFK's murder and the time of Oswald's arrest. These acts may include the murder of J.D. Tippit and the police broadcast of a Robert-Webster-like description.

I resolve my lack of satisfaction this way: It's possible Oswald was not set up as I've defined set-up; i.e., was not set up pre-assassination to take the fall. It's possible Oswald through his own voluntary acts simply made himself into an ideal patsy. And it's possible there was a criminal conspiracy to implicate him in JFK's (and possibly also in J.D. Tippit's) murder that commenced immediately following JFK's murder. Such a conspiracy could have worked in parallel to the cover-up, which began quickly and which certainly served the purpose of any such a conspiracy, but which was not part of such conspiracy.

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Dear Mr.Tidd,

That's an excellent question.

Fast-forwarding here to a recent exchange we had on the difference between being set up and being framed, couldn't the setting up of Oswald as the patsy have involved his being framed, after the fact, by the manipulation and distribution of his legend? And couldn't that have led seamlessly to the cover up?

--Tommy

Bumped in a probably-futile attempt to keep from being banished.

LOL(?)

PS --

Dear Mr. Tidd,

I guess the bad guys were just really really fortunate to have a pissed off, dishonorably-discharged undesirably-discharged ex-Marine (it's actually true that all Marines are, by definition, good marksmen), prone-to-violence, itinerant, minimum wage earning, Marxist, former "defector" to Russia, married-to-a-Russian, "Kostikov-connected", pro-Castro demonstrator already working in the TSBD for a few weeks when JFK's motorcade drove by -- you know, to frame for the assassination, after the fact.

Talk about serendipity. They must have been beside themselves with joy for the great good luck they'd fallen into. I mean, Oswald was so easy to finger (because he was an Odd Duck) and to frame (because he was an Odd Duck with a "legend") and worked out so much better than, say, Jack Dougherty or Billy Lovelady or Joe Molina would have, didn't he.

But was he set up, in advance, as the patsy?

Heavens no. It was all just ... just ..... coincidental.

--Tommy

edited and bumped

Edited March 30, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up?

By "cover-up" I mean acts intended to blur or conceal or falsify the facts of the assassination. Acts performed post-assassination.

By "set-up" I mean acts intended to implicate falsely Marina's husband ("Oswald", or if you prefer, "Harvey") as the killer of JFK. Acts performed pre-assassination.

I define the terms "cover-up" and "set-up" in order to facilitate an exchange of ideas. If you don't like my definitions and want to use "cover-up" or "set-up" to mean other than the meaning I've given, please provide your own definition, so that back-and-forth may remain rational and focused.

I do not know the answer to the question I pose. I do know this, however: [1] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, not all those involved in the cover-up necessarily had foreknowledge of or complicity in the assassination. [2] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, every individual who knowingly and voluntarily participated in or otherwise facilitated the set-up committed conspiracy to murder JFK. [3] If the set-up and cover-up were not distinct, they were not distinct for one of four reasons: [a] Either there was no set-up. Or there was no cover-up. [c] Or there was neither a set-up nor a cover-up. [d] Or there were both a set-up and a cover-up, under common control, that were intended to be parts of a single plan.

The reason I don't know the answer to the question I pose is that I'm not sure there was a set-up the way I've defined it. I'm not sure because [a] I don't know the truth about Oswald's actions leading up to the assassination; and I don't know the truth about the physical items used to implicate Oswald.

Here's how I lean, I lean toward believing whatever Oswald did, he did for his own reasons. I lean toward believing Oswald, like almost anyone, was capable of being influenced -- not in his reasoning but in the assumptions on which he acted. I lean toward believing the Mannlicher-Carcanno in the National Archives was not found in the TSBD. I lean toward believing the backyard photos were created post-assassination. So, according to my own definitions, I tend to lean toward there having been a cover-up but no set-up.

This is a somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion to me. It doesn't feel right. It allocates to the cover-up all post-assassination acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely in the murder of JFK. In particular, it allocates to the cover-up acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely that were performed between the time of JFK's murder and the time of Oswald's arrest. These acts may include the murder of J.D. Tippit and the police broadcast of a Robert-Webster-like description.

I resolve my lack of satisfaction this way: It's possible Oswald was not set up as I've defined set-up; i.e., was not set up pre-assassination to take the fall. It's possible Oswald through his own voluntary acts simply made himself into an ideal patsy. And it's possible there was a criminal conspiracy to implicate him in JFK's (and possibly also in J.D. Tippit's) murder that commenced immediately following JFK's murder. Such a conspiracy could have worked in parallel to the cover-up, which began quickly and which certainly served the purpose of any such a conspiracy, but which was not part of such conspiracy.

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Dear Mr. Jon G. Tidd,

I think that's an excellent question, Jon.

Fast-forwarding here to a recent exchange we had on the difference between being set up and being framed, couldn't the setting up of Oswald as the patsy have involved his being framed, after the fact, by the manipulation and distribution of his legend? And couldn't that have led seamlessly to the cover up?

--Tommy

Bumped in a probably-futile attempt to keep from being banished.

LOL(?)

PS --

Dear Mr. Tidd,

I guess the bad guys were just really really fortunate to have a pissed off, dishonorably-discharged undesirably-discharged ex-Marine (it's actually true that all Marines are, by definition, good marksmen), prone-to-violence, itinerant, minimum wage earning, Marxist, former "defector" to Russia, married-to-a-Russian, "Kostikov-connected", pro-Castro demonstrator already working in the TSBD for a few weeks when JFK's motorcade drove by -- you know, to frame for the assassination, after the fact.

Talk about serendipity. They must have been beside themselves with joy for the great good luck they'd fallen into. I mean, Oswald was so easy to finger (because he was an Odd Duck) and to frame (because he was an Odd Duck with a "legend") and worked out so much better than, say, Jack Dougherty or Billy Lovelady or Joe Molina would have, didn't he.

But was he set up, in advance, as the patsy?

Heavens no. It was all just ... just ..... coincidental.

--Tommy

edited and bumped

bumped for Mr. Jon G. Tidd (who is presently "lurking")

Edited March 30, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

I don't know the question you ask of me. I'm dense.

I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is watching Oswald with a practiced eye. Not in the shoes of someone who is manipulating him. You are watching him because he does unusual things of a political nature.

You see Oswald do stuff that marks him as a Marxist. You know Americans can interpret that to mean he's a communist.

You know Oswald is being tracked by the CIA and the FBI.

You want JFK dead. For some reason no one here dares to assert.

You know JFK is going to Dallas, maybe sooner or later. Just maybe.

What a great potential patsy you have. All you have to do is frame him.

[Mark Knight]

Put in those terms, I understand what you mean.

[David Josephs]

What a great potential patsy you have. All you have to do is frame him.

Ah... frame him as what?

For weeks if not months he is performing tasks that easily have two or more meanings

Help us with FPCC

Help us investigate mail order rifle houses (if the Hidell order as actually sent)

write letters trying to get back to Russia, with or without your wife

Ruth Paine arrives late Sept after visiting Friends (Quakers) and family/friends to take Marina to Irving

According to the FBI watching Oswald, an Oct 31st report from Kaack says that he left with his wife on Sept 25, presumably for TX.

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10413&relPageId=2

The next FBI Commission Doc is dated 11/24.

On 10/25 the FBI learns that Oswald forwarded mail from New Orleans to Irving

On 10/30 HOSTY makes first contact with Marina at the Paines. Oswald is not there https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=692235

next page - "Dallas and all offices should continue effort to locate subject LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

page 176 - 11/5 and still trying to locate Oswald from Little Rock Arkansas where Robert lives

p 178 Dallas FBI tells HQ and Little Rock that MICHAEL PAINE advised that LEE is at TSBD 411 Elm, unknown home address ... Oswald has been at his home since Oct 4th and home most weekends.

The FBI's WCD #1 only says that the FBI received reports in mid Oct that a person possibly identical to Oswald was in Mexico City https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402&relPageId=49

During what amounts to some of the most incriminating time prior to the assassination, the FBI, HOSTY, offers no clues about Oswald until Nov 1 when they hear from MICHAEL.

The following weeks include the Sports Drome sightings when he is both with his family one weekend and one weekend, the weekend before the assassination, he stays at his rooming house, does his laundry. Yet on these two weekends another impersonation occurs with the rifle and events occur which are sure to be stick in witnesses memories - the firing on a neighbor's target, the bragging, the Italian made rifle with scope... these same people put Oswald at this range in Dallas the same day an Oswald and Duran are recorded on tape at the Cuban/Soviet Embassies and only the night before, in Dallas, Lee is at Odio's. Did the FBI know this and bury reports... ??? or did they assume he was at Sports Drome and then realized it couldn't be there either - Hoover knew the CIA was lying about Mexico very early. IMO when he sees Lee HENRY and starts to get negative reports back from his Mexico sources (of which there were MANY)

Libeler: The Commission had information to the effect that sometime during November 1963, you saw a gentleman at the rifle range whom you subsequently came to believe was LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

Price: That's right. The first time I saw this person was in September, the last week, the last Saturday of September, and that was the afternoon they opened the rifle range.

Libeler: On the last Saturday of September? That would be Saturday, September 28, 1963?

Price: Yes.

-----

So in these critical days not only do we have the call and visit in Mexico, the Sports Drome intent to leave the impression Lee Oswald was there whether you think it was Lee, Crafard or some other look alike, maybe Igor Vaganov? http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6656.0 the multiple sightings in south Texas http://jfklancer.com/Page1.html and the FBI either not knowing where he is, not writing reports about it and knowing he is at Odio's with 2 Cubans or I have not yet found reports about what they knew of Oswald during this time.

I do know that the FBI checked their sources in Mexico and got reports on the 4th, 6th and 8th of Nov as they moved up the hierarchy with the 11/8 report a negative for Oswald from the Dept of Interior (Gobernacion) https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=61080&relPageId=2

The FBI has info finally by the 8th of Nov that Oswald was not observed in Mexico, there is no mention of the Odio incident and no evidence of the knowledge of his whereabouts until Nov 1.

Was the FBI setting Oswald up at this point as the patsy? From what I've seen, this does not occur until after 11/22. On the morning of 11/23 the report from Mexico is that although the Evidence shows HO LEE left by AUTO on Oct 3rd, not driving himself... the STATE dept rep CASH tells the I&NS that the evidence does not show the mode of transportation.

The FBI and their assets now create the Mexico trip out of thin air over the next 10 months. It is completely false but makes it appear as if he traveled to and from Mexico alone in order to secure passage to Russia via Cuba... a complete and total lie again as his passport was already approved for travel to Russia directly. It was his wife that was having the trouble.

I think by now we all know that Oswald did not shoot JFK... it was a set-up. Yet let's remember the most important piece of the set-up. Oswald MUST go home so it appears he gets his rifle - otherwise it would have had to be brought to him, ergo a conspiracy. He does not ask Wesley for a ride home until Thursday afternoon!

If he does not go home, he never brought the rifle - game over.

Marina claims the blanket in the garage looks as undisturbed as ever

Ozzie had gone to bed at 9pm, Ruth at 11:00pm. I think we all agree that he did not bring C2766 with him to work on Friday

If he does not go home, the set-up falls apart... as of noon on Thursday, he was not going home. HE initiates the trip.

Mr. BALL - I see.

Now, there was the one date that Oswald came to you and asked you to drive him back to Irving, it was not a Friday, was it?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it wasn't.

Mr. BALL - It was on a Thursday.

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - Was that the 21st of November?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Well, tell us about that.

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, we were standing like I said at the four-headed table about half as large as this, not, quite half as large, but anyway I was standing there getting the orders in and he said, "Could I ride home with you this afternoon?"

And I said, "Sure. You know, like I told you, you can go home with me any time you want to, like I say anytime you want to go see your wife that is all right with me."

So automatically I knew it wasn't Friday, I come to think it wasn't Friday and I said, "Why are you going home today?"

And he says, "I am going home to get some curtain rods." He said, "You know, put in an apartment."

He wanted to hang up some curtains and I said, "Very well." And I never thought more about it and I had some invoices in my hands for some orders and I walked on off and started filling the orders.

Mr. JENNER - Then, I would ask you directly, did you see him in the garage at anytime from the time you first saw him on the lawn until he retired for the night?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Until you retired for the night?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Was he out on the lawn after dinner or supper?

Mrs. PAINE - I don't believe so.

Mr. JENNER - Did you hear any activity out in the garage on that evening?

Mrs. PAINE - No; I did not.

Mr. JENNER - Any persons moving about?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - The only thing that arrested your attention was the fact that you discovered the light on in the garage?

Mrs. PAINE - That is right.

Mr. BALL - The statement says, "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."

Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.

Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.

Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.

Mr. BALL - He was alone?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.

Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.

Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.

Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

Anyone care to take a crack at explaining how a set-up as this can hinge on the patsy's decisions to go home?

Mrs. PAINE - As we were walking in the house, and he must have preceded because Marina and I spoke in private to one another, she apologized.

Mr. JENNER - Was Marina out on the lawn also?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes, sir. She apologized for his having come without permission and I said that was all right, and we said either then or later--I recall exchanging our opinion that this was a way of making up the quarrel or as close as he could come to an apology for the fight on the telephone, that his coming related to that, rather than anything else.

Mr. JENNER - That was her reaction to his showing up uninvited and unexpectedly on that particular afternoon, was it?

Mrs. PAINE - Well, it was rather my own, too.

Mr. JENNER - And it was your own?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - And because of this incident of the telephone call and your not being able to reach him, and the subsequent talk between Lee and Marina in which there had been some anger expressed, you girls reached the conclusion the afternoon of November 21 that he was home just to see if he could make up with Marina?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Do I fairly state it?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Edited March 28, 2015 by David Josephs

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Josephs,

IMO you are incredibly good at factual detail.

I'm sometimes OK with detail but prefer concepts.

[Thomas Graves]

David Josephs,

IMO you are incredibly good at factual detail.

I'm sometimes OK with detail but prefer concepts.

Dear Mr. Tidd,

Questions:

Since Oswald wasn't set up in advance to be the patsy, how does H&L fit in with the frame job which you say went into effect after the assassination?

Why is H&L important for us to accept in order to make sense out of the assassination?

--Tommy

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

In my view, H&L is a distraction. I can buy into John Armstrong's theory there were two boys, H & L, whose identities were merged by the U.S. Government.

That's a distraction, in my opinion. Except that someone might have witnessed it and made use of it.

IMO, the JFK assassination was a sophisticated job. IMO, the perps wanted to frame Oswald and hide themselves. And then let nature take its course.

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

In my view, H&L is a distraction. I can buy into John Armstrong's theory there were two boys, H & L, whose identities were merged by the U.S. Government.

That's a distraction, in my opinion. Except that someone might have witnessed it and made use of it.

IMO, the JFK assassination was a sophisticated job. IMO, the perps wanted to frame Oswald and hide themselves. And then let nature take its course.

Dear Mr. Tidd,

When you say, "Someone might have witnessed it," I guess you're saying that someone might have noticed that there were two Oswalds running around who looked a lot alike, one of whom was a real Odd Duck and had married Marina, and that their histories had been merged several years earlier by the government.

Do you think the person who noticed it was just a good observer and happened to notice it, or was he more likely a government "insider" who had helped to merge their histories?

--Tommy

Edited March 28, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

David Josephs,

IMO you are incredibly good at factual detail.

I'm sometimes OK with detail but prefer concepts.

Thanks Jon -

Distraction? I'd like to think of H&L, Nagel, Morales, Phillips, Hunt, Mexico, Ruby, etc... as "sub-plot"... it could fit the assassination or not... I believe your intel background would support the idea that whoever plotted this would use any and all resources involved in the most effective way they thought possible.

H&L is not needed in the least unless you feel that people like Hoover and Angleton were aware of these operations and part of the cover-up was to insure that program's ongoing success or existence.

The cover-up was to make everyone yet no one appear guilty - Salandria, and I imagine many others had it pegged the weekend of, especially after Oswald was killed. He, like Cliff pointed to the Jacket and said, not possible.

All those assets at the plotter's disposal were also liabilities to those not wanting them exposed, thereby ensuring an ongoing cover-up. These same programs were still running, need I say ARE still running only in much more sophisticated manner but the end is the same, the secrecy is the same - regardless of the president.

===============

Jon - as I rethought what I posted I must ask you to bring your attention to this one situation.

Oswald asks Wesley for a ride home approximately mid morning Thursday the 21st for whatever reason.

Without his going home:

1 - is there another way to get the rifle from the garage to the 6th floor and attribute it solely to Oswald

2 - is Oswald still the Patsy?

Wesley claims Oswald asks to take him home.

Paine says it was to make up with Marina... her garage light story is tissue paper thin

How can the entire set-up hinge on Oswald going home - is he setting himself up to take the blame somehow?

We know he didn't take that rifle to the TSBD nor was it in that garage, nor was it on Magazine when he moved out in Sept.

From that same post I think it shows that the FBI was not part of the set-up... that they were a victim of it and had to CYA or be "embarrassed" - the worst of Hoover's fears.

[Bill Simpich]

Jon,

I will take a quick pass at your question, because it is such a good one.

I think four of the places where the set-up is clear are:

1. The phone call of Sept 28 from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet consulate, supposedly by Oswald and Duran, followed by the 10/1 call from "Oswald" to the Soviet consulate.

As I wrote in State Secret, the purpose was to scare the CIA higher-ups into believing that its highly valued wiretap system

in Mexico City had been penetrated and to cause a reaction. I believe that they reacted with a molehunt, centered around Lee Oswald.

This molehunt can be most easily seen in the twin memos sent by HQ on 10/10/63 - one to the Mexico City station, one to the FBI, CIA, and Navy,

with two different descriptions of Oswald sent to different offices of these three agencies - designed to smoke out a mole if and when an unauthorized person used any of this information..

Whether or not you agree with my hypothesis that Oswald's identity was used for a molehunt by Angleton's CI-SIG, it's clear that Oswald was a center of attention for these agencies in the two months before 11/22.

All three of them acted in bizarre ways...in the days before the 9/28 phone call, the CIA's CI-SIG took most of Oswald's 201 file and put it under Egerter's exclusive control so that Mexico City had little understanding of LHO's biography; the FBI dug up Oswald's baby records and fluttered many of their most sensitive sources; the Navy was repeatedly asked (and failed) to send an Oswald photo to the Mexico City station so they could compare it with the Mystery Man.

And, of course, ties had now supposedly been made between Oswald and Cuban secretary Silvia

Duran, as well as the supposed master of assassinations and sabotage - Kostikov of the 13th Department.

When Oswald was identified as the probable shooter - it was a "poison pill" or "blackmail" for the higher-ups of the CIA, FBI, and Navy. These facts set forth above were hidden until after the ARRB released the documents in the 90s, because they would have made these agencies look terrible, even culpable.

2. Oswald got moved into position to be employed at the TSBD in the month before the 11/22 shooting. JFK had come thru town before in motorcades; his trip was now a sure thing; his probable route going by the TSBD as I understand it was more or less a reasonable assumption. I think one of the things to look at is how Wesley Buell Frazier got his job at the TSBD around 9/15 thru an agency that I want to study....then Oswald got his job the following month, supposedly when Frazier's sister Linnie Randle was having cheesecake with Ruth Paine. Both of them have different stories...Ruth is more convinced that Linnie told her a job was available, Linnie said that she wasn't nearly that certain...I'm inclined to think parties manipulated both Ruth and Linnie, but I don't automatically give them a pass.

3. The sightings of Oswald at the Sportsdrome are very important. I do not think it was Oswald. I am particularly struck by the sighting of a man named Frazier who was supposedly there. I think Frazier was impersonated as well. That would explain why Frazier has been reluctant to talk all these years. Also important is the LHO sighting at Lincoln-Mercury as well as repeated sightings of Oswald at Hutchinson's grocery in Irving during the working day on the weekdays, particularly because Oswald had no ride from Frazier to get over there. (I get into these issues in depth in Chapters 11-12 of the Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend series.)

4. I also think the five radio calls starting at 12:44 pm/Nov 22 passing on the tip about the 5 foot 10/165 pound shooter (and similar tips after the Tippit shooting) are very important and the final part of the set-up. Needless to say...though I think the Oswald legend had been used for a variety of reasons over the years, only during the last 60 days did this set-up take place. As Peter Dale Scott once said to me, it was like there was a paper mache figure named Oswald, borrowed by a lot of people, with his clothes always filled with pocket litter.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Bill Simpich,

Thanks.

[1] I don't have knowledge of the mole hunt, so I'll defer to your knowledge. FWIW, I've always believed the Oswald impersonations in M.C. were part of some CIA operation unconnected to the JFK assassination. It has always seemed to me the attempt to implicate Oswald post-assassination in what were clearly impersonations was handled clumsily and was merely a weak attempt to frame Marina's husband. I distinguish the frame from any set-up.

[2] The fact Oswald got the position at the TSBD when he did and how he did merits close consideration. I agree that Ruth Paine's actions in this regard are consistent with her helping to set up Oswald.

[3] The Oswald sightings at the Sportsdrome are significant IMO only because Marina's husband was killed on November 24 and never went to trial. They serve, not particularly well, as part of the frame job. I think a prosecutor would be loath to try to introduce these sightings into evidence. Far too many unknowns.

[4] The radio calls IMO, to the extent they were part of an attempt to draw attention to Oswald, were part of the frame job.

When I think of a possible set-up, I ask whether there are indications someone other than Oswald was pulling Oswald's strings. Oswald's getting the job at the TSBD is the major occurrence pre-assassination, I believe, that looks as if it was managed by a third party to set up Oswald as patsy.