Two Oswalds in the Texas Theater

[Denis Morissette]

1 hour ago, Rich Pope said:

Who said Michael Paine's wife was CIA?  His wife's SISTER was CIA.

I can't remember who said Ruth was CIA. Not someone credible for sure. Her sister was, OK. 

[Michael Clark]

20 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Jim,

 

My reference to the "Stringfellow" cable was that Stringfellow allegedly said that Oswald had "defected" to Cuba in 1959, not just visited there as Hoover maintains in the memo you cited. We know that it was Russia he "defected" to, not Cuba.

 

What's that business in Hoover's memo about Oswald shooting at two cops a block or two away from the TSBD, killing one?

It wasn't just Stringfellow who was "slinging a lot of questionable info around that day."

 

Steve Thomas

Hoover is recorded on an LBJ recording saying a cop or secret service agent (can’t remember which) was killed near the TSBD. It’s easily locatable on YouTube. 

 

Edit, typo. LBJ for JBJ

Edited September 13, 2019 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Hoover is recorded on an LBJ recording saying a cop or secret service agent (can’t remember which) was killed near the TSBD. It’s easily locatable on YouTube. 

Having said that,... I can’t find it. Digging...

Edited September 13, 2019 by Michael Clark

[Karl Hilliard]

Back to the 'Two Oswalds'... I thought I had asked about this earlier..but if Oswald did not go in the direction of the Tippit shooting but rather walked or got a ride to the Texas Theater---What might have happened to this supposed jacket that the housekeeper said he wore? I realize that no one would know, but it is still a consideration.

[Karl Hilliard]

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Hoover is recorded on an JBJ recording saying a cop or secret service agent (can’t remember which) was killed near the TSBD. It’s easily locatable on YouTube. 

Am not sure...What is a JBJ recording?

[Michael Clark]

Just now, Karl Hilliard said:

Am not sure...What is a JBJ recording?

It’s a recording, I think on the 23rd, maybe late on the 22nd. Hoover is giving an early report of a dead SSA or cop, in Dealy Plaza. I may have even saved it, iPad to iPhone, voice memo. I’ll check. To be sure it will/would be a YouTube video recorded to an iPhone.

[Michael Clark]

5 minutes ago, Karl Hilliard said:

Am not sure...What is a JBJ recording?

Sorry, LBJ recording. I’ll edit my post.

[John Kozlowski]

5 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

I can't remember who said Ruth was CIA. Not someone credible for sure. Her sister was, OK. 

 Is it really out of the question to speculate she was CIA considering she had connections all around her. Her sister worked for them and her brother in law and father worked for the Agency For International Development, a known cover source for CIA Agents. When her house was searched after the assassination file cabinets were found that contained info on communist sympathizers. Why would she have that if she wasn’t reporting to someone?  I don’t believe it can be ruled out she was working for the CIA in fact I believe she was working for a branch of intelligence.   

[Michael Clark]

Just now, John Kozlowski said:

 Is it really out of the question to speculate she was CIA considering she had connections all around her. Her sister worked for them and her brother in law and father worked for the Agency For International Development, a known cover source for CIA Agents. When her house was searched after the assassination file cabinets were found that contained info on communist sympathizers. Why would she have that if she wasn’t reporting to someone?  I don’t believe it can be ruled out she was working for the CIA in fact I believe she was working for a branch of intelligence.   

Yeah, I am thinking that AID is just “CIA Lite”. 

It’s like saying that Earle Cabell, Mayor of Dallas, was just the Mayor, and the fact that his brother, Charles Cabell, was Deputy Director of the CIA is of no consequence. Add the fact that their brother (former Dallas Mayor, IRRC) died in March of 64, and we have, of course, just another insignificant consequence.

@Lance Payette What do you think about brothers offing a brother, because, you know, you just sort-of have-to. Why do I get the feeling that the offed Cabell brother was probably the good, smart, loyal one, kind of like Jeb; maybe?

To be sure, when I say “Loyal”, I mean loyal to, well, you know, loyal to good things and people.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

53 minutes ago, John Kozlowski said:

 Is it really out of the question to speculate she was CIA considering she had connections all around her. Her sister worked for them and her brother in law and father worked for the Agency For International Development, a known cover source for CIA Agents. When her house was searched after the assassination file cabinets were found that contained info on communist sympathizers. Why would she have that if she wasn’t reporting to someone?  I don’t believe it can be ruled out she was working for the CIA in fact I believe she was working for a branch of intelligence.   

Yeah, some of us have come to think over the years Ruth might have done what was necessary/requested to keep Michael's trust fund flowing, the Cabot's and Lodge's had deep pockets.  He would probably have cooperated too, wittingly or not.  If asked to take in and keep an eye on Marina, with likely assistance in funding to do so how could Ruth have said no?  Let's keep in mind he was handed off to them by the debonair De Mohrenschild who never would never have touched Ozzie without suggestion and approval from Dallas head of Secret Service officer G A Moore, he said.  Of course De M abandoned ship immediately asap and headed for Haiti with new money in hand after the handoff.

BTW, Michael.  I think your right, on the right track.  AID, employer of Ruth's dad, I think wasn't just CIA Lite, they were a fully funded front, thus employee's did their bidding.  

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Mr. B. wants us to believe Davis and Burroughs were wrong about when the first Oswald arrived,

False. Mr B does not want you to believe that. Mr B is not aware of any good reason to doubt that the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald arrived at the Texas Theater shortly after one o'clock. That wasn't the point Mr B was making.

Quote

and/or he wants us to believe that the Postal/Brewer timeline was incorrect about the time the second Oswald arrived.

False. Mr B has no reason to doubt that Postal and Brewer (and Burroughs) detected an intruder at around the time Burroughs gave: 1.35 (1987 version) or 1.45 (2007 version). That wasn't the point Mr B was making, either.

Quote

He wants us to believe that if a second Oswald was arrested in the balcony and hustled out of the theater, none of this could be seen clearly enough by Burroughs to enable him to say he saw Oswald arrested, even as the man was hustled down stairs and out the back door.

Mr B does indeed want you to believe that Burroughs wouldn't have been able to see an arrest in the balcony, because the evidence tells us that Burroughs wouldn't have been able to see an arrest in the balcony. Burroughs was working on the ground floor, at his concession stand at the back of the auditorium. Burroughs never made any suggestion that he went up to the balcony during the time the police were inside the building. He certainly doesn't appear to have told Jim Marrs in 1987 or James Douglass in 2007 that he had gone anywhere near the balcony, or that he had seen anything resembling an arrest in the vicinity of the balcony. Marrs and Douglass would surely have reported this if Burroughs had mentioned it, but they didn't. Mr B thinks it is certain that Butch Burroughs stayed on the ground floor, and therefore that whatever Burroughs saw, happened on the ground floor.

As for Jim's claim that "a second Oswald was ... hustled out of the theater ... hustled down stairs", Mr B would say that there is a perfectly credible explanation (which he has given several times already in this thread) for the "hustled out of the theater" part and that there is no reason to believe that the "hustled down stairs" part happened.

Mr B is not aware of any witnesses who claimed that anyone was "hustled down stairs". Butch Burroughs doesn't seem to have told Marrs or Douglass that he had seen anyone come down the stairs, let alone that he had seen anyone "hustled down" the stairs. Again, Marrs and Douglass would surely have reported this if Burroughs had mentioned it.

Mr B thinks that Jim is making that bit up, unless Jim has located a witness that Mr B has overlooked. If Mr B has overlooked such a witness, Mr B apologises. If Jim is unable to supply a witness who claimed that anyone was "hustled down stairs", Mr B hopes that Jim will acknowledge his error, just as Jim (eventually, after some prompting) acknowledged a few pages ago that he was entirely wrong in stating that Burroughs had claimed to have witnessed an arrest in the balcony.

Quote

Are we seriously to believe this scene necessitates THREE OSWALDS to envision?

No, we are not. The reason why Jim's three-Oswald scenario needs to be conjured into existence is to do with the point Mr B was actually making, the point which Jim has been trying very hard to avoid answering. This is it:

Butch Burroughs claimed, thirty years after the assassination, that he saw, from his position on the ground floor, someone who looked like the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested and escorted by police out of the rear of the Texas Theater. Two police reports claimed that someone named Oswald was arrested in the balcony. If both sources are correct, there must have been two fake Oswalds, in addition to the real-life Oswald who was arrested and taken out of the front of the building.

Here, for the benefit of anyone who is having trouble following the argument, is the calculation that forces us to arrive at that conclusion:

A - One Oswald, real, arrested on ground floor, left via front door.

B - One Oswald, fake, arrested on ground floor, left via rear door.

C - One Oswald, fake, arrested in balcony, left by undisclosed means, probably via the 'Harvey and Lee' invisible spaceship, after telling the police his name was Oswald and thereby giving the game away.

A + B + C = three Oswalds.

Now, if we are to propose that only two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theater, we need to dispose of one set of evidence. The one set of evidence that we can't really dispose of is the evidence that the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald was taken out of the front entrance. If we did that, we would become objects of ridicule, and even small children would point at us in the street and laugh at us.

So we have to dispose of either Burroughs' 30-year-old recollection or the police reports. Either Burroughs was mistaken or the police reports were mistaken. Either the fake Oswald was arrested on the ground floor, or the fake Oswald was arrested in the balcony. Which is it to be?

Or should we dispose of both? Mr B would be inclined to dispose of both, because it is forehead-slappingly obvious that George Applin was the young white man whom Burroughs and Haire saw.

The eagerness to seize on every possible source that suggests the existence of a fake Oswald has blinded the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's handful of faithful believers to the contradiction between the sources. Burroughs contradicts the police reports. Which one of those sources was mistaken? Or were both of them mistaken?

P.S. Mr B recalls that excellent Seinfeld episode, 'The Jimmy'.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Ron Bulman writes:

Quote

Three is not supported.  Two is.

 On the contrary, if you accept that Burroughs and the police reports were not mistaken, three Oswalds is exactly what you've got. To whittle that uncomfortable total down to two Oswalds, you have to discard either Burroughs or the police reports as being mistaken.

But the problem is: if you discard one, why not the other? Ron, which would you prefer to keep: Burroughs' account of a fake Oswald being arrested on the ground floor, or the police account of a fake Oswald being arrested in the balcony? I'd guess you would prefer to keep Burroughs:

Quote

Unless Applin bore a strong resemblance to LHO he wasn't the guy Burroughs saw taken out the back.

Not necessarily. The earliest record we have of Butch Burroughs' claim dates from 1993. One might think that police reports are more likely to be reliable than a recollection 30 years after the event. Although it's easy to see how the police reports might have been mistaken, it's even easier to see how Burroughs might have been mistaken.

Not to mention that there is an obvious and credible candidate for the person Burroughs saw. George Applin was, like Oswald, a young white man who encountered the police on the ground floor, who left the building with the police, and who was driven away in a police car. Applin is very likely to have left the building by the rear entrance, for several reasons: at least one of the police officers he spoke to had used the rear entrance; that is where several police cars were parked; and the police officers who drove Applin away would surely have used the same cars they had arrived in. George Applin's movements exactly fit the movements of the person whom Burroughs and Bernard Haire saw. Only one person is recorded as having been escorted by the police from the front of the building, and that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Only one person is recorded as having been escorted by the police from the rear of the building, and that person must be George Applin.

If I had to choose between them, I'd say the police reports are less likely to be mistaken than Burroughs' 30-year-old recollection of an incident which has a perfectly understandable explanation. Obviously, the most likely option is that both sources were mistaken.

Ron, what makes you think the police reports were unreliable? Or, if you don't think they or Burroughs were unreliable, why were three Oswalds arrested in the Texas Theater?

I used to enjoy reading your posts over at Jeff Morley's site, by the way.

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. B. wants us to believe that the second Oswald, who Burroughs and Haire both thought they saw arrested, was actually George Applin.  In fact, he states this as if it were a known fact!  He states this

• even though he doesn’t have the slightest idea if Applin looked anything at all like Classic Oswald®,
• even though he doesn’t know if Applin left by the back entrance, as the man both Burroughs and Haire witnessed did, or the front entrance,
• and even though Applin left the theater only after police had locked down the building and interviewed every theater patron, by most estimates approaching twenty people.

Burroughs said the second arrest happened just “three or four minutes later” than the arrest of Classic Oswald.  Jim Marrs interviewed Bernard Haire in 1987 and noted that Haire told him that the man he thought was Oswald, the man brought out the theater’s back door, “seemed to be flushed, as if he’d been in a struggle.”  [Crossfire, p. 354]  Is there evidence that Applin fought with police?  I don’t think so.

Finally, Mr. B. predicates his silly “three Oswald” business on his own parsing of Burroughs’ statements, claiming that even if the second Oswald was brought downstairs from the balcony before Burroughs’ saw him that would preclude a balcony arrest.  Nothing in Crossfire or JFK and the Unspeakable precludes a balcony arrest for the man both Burroughs and Haire obviously thought looked like Classic Oswald®.

James Douglass said it clearly when he wrote (emphasis added): 

Because Butch Burroughs saw neither Oswald nor his lookalike enter the Texas Theater, each must have gone directly up the balcony stairs on entering. Oswald crossed the balcony and came down the stairs on the far side of the lobby. There he entered the orchestra seats and began his seat-hopping, in apparent search of a contact. His lookalike sneaked into the theater at 1:45 P.M. and, like Oswald, went immediately up the balcony stairs. By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony. [JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 461]

We've been over all this before, of course, but Mr. B. continues to press his "three Oswald" nonsense. Pretending that the existing evidence about the theater arrests required “three Oswalds” to make sense is nothing but rhetorical diarrhea. 

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

Back to the 'Two Oswalds'... I thought I had asked about this earlier..but if Oswald did not go in the direction of the Tippit shooting but rather walked or got a ride to the Texas Theater---What might have happened to this supposed jacket that the housekeeper said he wore? I realize that no one would know, but it is still a consideration.

Karl,

What interests me most about the jacket is that it was almost immediately in the possession of Capt. Westbrook, who also held the second “Oswald/Hidell” wallet at 10th and Patton.  In fact, Westbrook at one point claimed he was the first to pick up the jacket.  From John A’s writeup on the November 22 page of our website:

Motorcycle officer John R. Mackey was in the parking lot behind the Texaco station. Mackey said: "About the time we reached the area the dispatcher was broadcasting information regarding the suspect & his escape route. We pulled up on Jefferson & started checking some cars parked behind a service station to see if the suspect was hiding in or under one of the cars. That's when we found his jacket. We saw Captain Westbrook in his car on Jefferson so I turned the jacket over to him." Mackey said that he turned the jacket over to Capt. Westbook. When questioned by the WC, personnel officer Westbrook said that he could not remember the name of the officer who found the jacket. Westbrook told the WC: "…. I walked on towards the parking lot behind the Texaco service station, & some officer...said, 'Look! There's a jacket under the car.... So I walked over & reached under & picked up the jacket." Westbrook said that he picked up the jacket. While Westbrook's and Mackey's stories may differ, motorcycle patrolman Thomas Hutson, who was about 25 yards away, told the HSCA that he saw Capt. Westbrook standing in the alley holding the jacket.

NOTE: In 1978  researcher Larry Ray Harris interviewed John Mackey, who refused to discuss the jacket. Mackey told Harris, "that information might be something they (senior DPD officials) don't want given out." I doubt that "senior DPD officials" would care whether it was Westbrook or Mackey who "found" the jacket. However, "senior DPD officials" would not want to give out any information that suggested Capt. Westbrook was somehow connected to the jacket.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Mr. B. predicates his silly “three Oswald” business on his own parsing of Burroughs’ statements, claiming that even if the second Oswald was brought downstairs from the balcony before Burroughs’ saw him that would preclude a balcony arrest.

No, that isn't what Mr B is claiming. The points Mr B was actually making are:

- Burroughs was on the ground floor the whole time and cannot have seen anyone being arrested in the balcony.

- There is no evidence that anyone, fake Oswald or real Oswald or anyone else, was brought downstairs by the police. No witnesses mentioned that anyone was brought downstairs, by the police or by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or by anyone else. Burroughs did not state to Marrs or Douglass that he had seen anyone being brought downstairs. If Burroughs had told Marrs or Douglass that he had seen an Oswald lookalike being brought downstairs by the police, Marrs and Douglass would surely have reported it. But they didn't. We know that Burroughs was in a position to see such an event, if it had occurred, because he mentioned that he had seen a woman go up the stairs. We can therefore be certain that he did not see anyone coming down the stairs after that person had been arrested by the police in the balcony.

- Burroughs specifically stated that he had witnessed the arrest of someone who was not Oswald.

- Since Burroughs was on the ground floor the whole time, and since Burroughs did not see anyone being brought downstairs by the police, and since Burroughs cannot have seen any arrest in the balcony, the "arrest" that he saw must have happened on the ground floor. This cannot therefore have been the "arrest" that, according to police reports, happened in the balcony. If, like Jim, we need to believe both Burroughs and the police, we must conclude that two separate arrests of fake Oswalds took place in the Texas Theater.

- One fake Oswald arrested in the balcony plus one fake Oswald arrested on the ground floor equals two fake Oswalds. Add one real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald who was indisputably arrested on the ground floor, and we have three Oswalds, which is one Oswald too many for the 'Harvey and Lee' believers and two Oswalds too many for sane people.

Jim again quotes this passage from Douglass's book:

Quote

By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony

As I've explained already, the "he had also come down the balcony stairs" part is 100% speculation. There is no witness evidence or documentary evidence that anyone had "come down the balcony stairs" after having been arrested in the balcony.

Not only is it 100% speculation, but it is a particularly desperate type of speculation: no-one who had been arrested would have "come down the balcony stairs ... on his own" and no-one who had "come down the balcony stairs ... accompanied by police" would have needed to be arrested again once he got downstairs. If you still believe that Burroughs and the police weren't mistaken, you must believe that there were two separate arrests of fake Oswalds that day, one in the balcony and one on the ground floor. Unlike Jim, I find that rather difficult to believe.

There's a good reason why there is no evidence that anyone came down the stairs under arrest. It's because no-one was arrested in the balcony, least of all some idiot who stupidly told the police his name was Oswald. Nor was anyone other than Oswald arrested on the ground floor. The person who was seen by Burroughs and Haire was George Applin.