Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle “evidence”


Recommended Posts

McKeown admits, after trying to dance around it, that he intentionally withheld the meeting with Hernandez and Oswald from the FBI when they came to see him about Ruby right after the assassination. Do you think that would have been important to the FBI? He knew it was.

I agree that it's no less important if his visitor was an imposter but Mckeown positively identifies the guy as THE "Lee Oswald" we all know.

As far as whether McKeown is "connected" or not... don't be so naive, read the FBI documents about the prior conviction. He was only a "friend" of Castro's because he was supplying Castro arms (funded by Carlos Prio). Once Castro got to power and turned left instead of right he screwed Prio and the Mob. I'm sure those requests for "introductions" had all but dried up by the time of the Missile Crisis.

Both Ruby and Oswald were directed to McKeown from somewhere. Are you suggesting the yellow pages?

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 424
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting testimony on page 623.

McKeown is describing to the HSCA how he was watching TV when...

"I seen it when he killed him".

Then he goes on to describe a conversation he had with the friend that was living with him when both Ruby and Oswald visited, Sam Neal.

"And then Sam called right after that and we went down to somewhere, I do not know where. [CN- the bar?] He call me up and say, hey, that is the son-of-a-bitch who was at your house, that is the guy who was at your house talking about Oswald.

I said. it sure is."

Ruby was talking about Oswald at McKeown's? That's quite the reveal and no follow-up.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=955#relPageId=631&tab=page

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to post
Share on other sites
Should we really be surprised that a convicted gunrunner currently on parole tried to downplay to law-enforcement a meeting with potential gun buyers??? Sounds entirely normal to me, as is the fact that, contrary to the HSCA’s throwaway line, McKeown was hardly seeking publicity or a book deal. I agree with much of what you say above, but let’s not let quibbling over the details cloud our view of McKeown’s stunning revelation.


If it is fundamentally true, and I see no reason whatsoever to believe it isn’t, McKeown’s testimony is among the most important ever made after the WC hearings. The details don’t matter nearly as much as the simple fact that a guy saying his name was “Lee Oswald” tried multiple times to purchase high-powered rifles with scopes eventually for laughably high prices from Castro’s personal friend and arms merchant just weeks before the assassination.


Again, given the history of the HSCA’s performance following it’s leadership coup, I’m astounded that they let McKeown speak with immunity. The lack of follow-up in regard to his revelations should surprise no one familiar with the similar tactics of the FBI and WC in 1963/64. McKeown clearly encountered lackeys of the original conspirators planning the murder of JFK, and the encounter revealed the true purpose of the hit: to place the blame on Fidel Castro and provoke an invasion of Cuba.


Is there any other way to read this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any other way to read this?

No. I agree. There isn't.

I wondered if there was any other way to parse this stunning statement:

He call me up and say, hey, that is the son-of-a-bitch who was at your house, that is the guy who was at your house talking about Oswald.

McKeown must have started sweating bullets when Ozzy was captured and the press went crazy both on TV and print about the President's assassin. Think of the relief when the FBI showed up at his business and only asked about Oswald's killer, Ruby (per Mckeown, anyway).

Mckeown states elsewhere in his Ruby testimony that Ruby visited him many times. The key question would have been "When did Ruby talk about Oswald and what was the context?". No where is the claim made that Ruby was at Mckeown's after the assassination of JFK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam Neal lived with McKeown and Mckeown's wife. He is mentioned many times by McKeown and always seems to be present whenever McKeown is doing business, as he was for both the visits of Ruby and Oswald. Neal's profession is listed elsewhere as "electrician" but given the context I suppose that looks better than "muscle".

At a minimum, they were "very close".

Sometime in September or early October, 1963 around 9-10 AM OZZY and Hernandez show up:

"I seen this car drive up and these two people got out and they came and knocked on the door and my wife was in her negligee and she ran upstairs, you know, and Sam was there. We were getting ready to get some oysters or something, I don't know."

Some strange stuff going on there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting testimony on page 623.

McKeown is describing to the HSCA how he was watching TV when...

"I seen it when he killed him".

Then he goes on to describe a conversation he had with the friend that was living with him when both Ruby and Oswald visited, Sam Neal.

"And then Sam called right after that and we went down to somewhere, I do not know where. [CN- the bar?] He call me up and say, hey, that is the son-of-a-bitch who was at your house, that is the guy who was at your house talking about Oswald.

I said. it sure is."

Ruby was talking about Oswald at McKeown's? That's quite the reveal and no follow-up.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=955#relPageId=631&tab=page

Chris,

Here is another way that sentence can be understood, just by adding a comma (a short pause):

"....that is the son-of-a-bitch who was at your house, that is the guy who was at your house, talking about Oswald. [not Ruby]"

Do you see what I mean? McKeown, (paraphrasing Sam Neal) says the following about Oswald:

"....that is the son-of-a-bitch who was at your house, that is the guy who was at your house,...."

and then he clarifies to Mr. Purdy who he's talking about by adding:

"....talking about Oswald."

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

When the FBI visited McKeown January 28th, 1964, McKeown stated he met Ruby once in 1959 about getting an "introduction" to Fidel Castro.

When the HSCA asked it's first question concerning the first time McKeown had met Ruby; McKeown pleads the Fifth Amendment and at that point is given Immunity. This is SOP, immunity was already on the table and he had to invoke the Fifth to get it out there so they got that business out of the way first. The protections granted by the Fifth Amendment weren't about Ruby, they were about the concealment of the visit of Oswald and Hernandez from the FBI that might have made him "an accessory after the fact".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another way that sentence can be understood, just by adding a comma (a short pause):

"....that is the son-of-a-bitch who was at your house, that is the guy who was at your house, talking about Oswald. [not Ruby]"

Do you see what I mean? McKeown, (paraphrasing Sam Neal) says the following about Oswald:

"....that is the son-of-a-bitch who was at your house, that is the guy who was at your house,...."

and then he clarifies to Mr. Purdy who he's talking about by adding:

"....talking about Oswald."

I agree that with some grammar gymnastics we could parse that statement in a number of ways.

But.... not in the context of the conversation with Sam Neal. They already knew Oswald was in play and then they watched Ruby kill him on TV.

They are speaking about Ruby moments after he shot Oswald.

Both McKeown and Neal realized that both those guys are guys that "was at your house" there is no reason to add that in a conversation between the two unless Ruby mentioned Oswald and now here he was shooting him.

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another way that sentence can be understood, just by adding a comma (a short pause)

Sandy,

I've read literally thousands of transcripts in my time working in the litigation support field. Sometimes inflection can be a subtle thing to see but in this case it is not. There is a pause, which the transcriptionist clearly conveys, but not at the point you suggest. Go back and look at the transcript and tell me what you see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Link to post
Share on other sites

D

Pricey? You know its cost back then?

The argument that it wasn't officially available has been nullified.

Thank you Greg!

Dear Barto,

Did I say that I knew the price?

National Geographic tends to advertise high-quality stuff, yes? High-quality stuff tends to be expensive, yes?

West German made. Four-element lens. Up to 1/1000 second shutter speed. Etc.

Do you think it might have been within LHO's financial means?

OK.

Maybe he stole it. Or someone else did and gave it to him.

-- Tommy :sun

PS Nice find, Greg Parker.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...