The Beckley Bunch

[Ed LeDoux]

On 2/27/2020 at 2:31 PM, David Josephs said:

Seems to me Ed, without the modern buildings there, the view from the backyard balcony/top of the steps in the BYPs to the corner of Elsbeth was very possible...

That's not what the ladies say.

They said hanging laundry 

There was no view to the back yard.

So again its Hugh's anonymous entities claiming that, and no real evidence that was how he found Neely.

It is another question Aynesworth will need to answer.

Do any photos exist of any view From Neely backyard to Elsbeth... why not?

Cheers,

Ed

[Ed LeDoux]

On 2/27/2020 at 5:38 PM, Steve Roe said:

No Ed, don’t get all melodramatic again. 2 brands of shells found at the Tippit Murder scene, same 2 brands of 0.38’s found on Oswald. 
I already know your answer, everyone in Dallas County framed Oswald. 
How many conspirators are you up to now Ed, with this pistol plant fantasy? Got to be at least 50. Did they hold a Pre-Assassination meeting at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium to discuss who was going to plant the gun, plant the holster, get Fritz to invent the North Beckley story, get the Johnsons to go along with Fritz and frame Oswald....

Seriously, is this some kind of joke? 

How many innocent people had their convictions overturned in Dallas Steven?

20+

Those real humans had alibis.

They were with family and friends or far from the scene of the crime.

Didn't matter did it Steve? Well till DNA kept but not shared by the DA's office proved their innocence.

Do or did these things happen in a vacuum. To Steve they must.

Are you saying that in each case the detectives and Will Fritz were not framing them? How did they obtain the conviction without proper police work?

Are you in a historical fantasy world?

When's the Jamboree Steve???

Is that where you are going to joke about the travesties in Dallas as a one man stage performance...

I'd buy a ticket and a tomato.

Cheers, Ed

PS

Got that Holster - Revolver match yet 

Edited March 1, 2020 by Ed LeDoux

[Ed LeDoux]

On 2/26/2020 at 1:39 PM, Andrej Stancak said:

Ed:

thanks for taking time to respond. However, I find your responses as again diverging away from the simple question I asked. Your last post is enough for me to see that you do not have any positive evidence about alternative address of Lee Oswald in October and November 1963. How many people had to lie to make your story possible? Ten, twenty? How many people would have to lie under oath and risk ending in jail and loss any self-respect for the rest of their lives? People usually do not lie, only if their existence or existence of their loved ones is in grave danger. However, this was not the case of witnesses in 1026 North Beckley.

I can now retire from this thread. Actually, I may come back if Mrs Pat Hall would respond to my request for information regarding the keys rules in North Beckley rooming house. The lack of keys in Lee Oswald's possession during his arrest puzzles me and I would like to understand this point. 

Why does Not Living at an address need alternatives.

That is a false equivalency.

Being framed for a cop killing isnt enough?

This is a tactic. ...you go first.

 

How many people had to lie to convict 20 + innocent people?

A rough estimate will do.

TIA.

Cheers, Ed

PS, 

RE-READ THE ESSAY

I explicitly replied to this 

And now a second time special for Andrej 

[Ed LeDoux]

On 2/26/2020 at 3:12 PM, Andrej Stancak said:

John:

some of the authors I quoted spoke to Mrs. or Mr. Johnson. They were conspiracy researchers and sensitive to any false information fitting the official version. These people were not gullible or poorly informed. It is therefore useful to know their views. Actually, it is part of good research to familiarise with the views of first or second generation researchers. 

 

Appeal to authority Andrej.

That they accepted without question that Oswald lived under an alias is on them.

It's not a shining moment for any of them.

Their lack of questioning faults them not me Andrej 

Edited March 1, 2020 by Ed LeDoux

[Ed LeDoux]

Here is Will Fritz's statement:

"I talked to Oswald about his leaving the building, and he told me he left by bus and rode to a stop near home and walked on to his house. At the time of Oswald's arrest he had a bus transfer in his pocket. He admitted this was given to him by the bus driver when he rode the bus after leaving the building."  

Here is Hosty and Bookouts statement:

"Oswald stated he then went home by bus and changed his clothes and went to a move."

Bookhout solo report:

"Following his departure from the Texas School Book Depository, he boarded a city bus to his residence and obtained transfer upon departure from the bus. He stated that officers at the time of arresting him took his transfer out of his pocket."

And finally Thomas Kelley, Secret Service:

 "In response to questions put by Captain Fritz, Oswald said that immediately after having left the building where he worked, he went by bus to the theater where he was arrested; that when he got on the bus he secured a transfer and thereafter transferred to other buses to get to his destination." 

 

Seems a lot of wiggle room in Oswald's statements or poetic license was used in some cases.

I dealt conclusively with the transfer in the "Dallas Transit Transfer" essay.

Lee went to the theater from work on a bus, and the Beckley bus gets closer than the Marsalis by a half mile. It was directly behind the Marsalis bus and stopped at the corner of Elm and Houston as a regular stop.

Why does Andrej
" find this scenario improbable and logically inconsistent "

Though its what was reported in interrogations....

Cheers, Ed

[Ed LeDoux]

Question, what is between the Texas Theater and Beckley where that bus stops.

Would it be a SHOE STORE Andrej?

It is.

And of course why would Lee peer into the lobby, ... 

Do you have a wife and kids Andrej?

[Larry Hancock]

Its not much of a contribution but we do know that Oswald was thinking about shoes for his daughter; it has always amazed me that it was a concern he expressed even after he was charged and being held for murder.  That he would talk about something like that at that point in time has always blown me away but it might indicate that he truly had little clue about what was going on, that he had not done anything that he was guilty of and he suspected that it was all a bogus and he had been arrested simply because he had been in Russia as he said to the press - and that he was confident no charges would stick and he would be released or certainly not convicted.

That is nothing but pure speculation of course but talking about shoes for  your child while being held for the murder of the president is pretty darn strange for someone who knows he has just committed two murders.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

(To his Wife.) "Oh, no, they have not been beating me. They are treating me fine. . . . You're not to worry about that. Did you bring June and Rachel? . . . Of course we can speak about absolutely anything at all. . . . It's a mistake. I'm not guilty. There are people who will help me. There is a lawyer in New York on whom I am counting for help. . . . Don't cry. There is nothing to cry about. Try not to think about it. . . . Everything is going to be all right. If they ask you anything, you have a right not to answer. You have a right to refuse. Do you understand? . . . You are not to worry. You have friends. They'll help you. If it comes to that, you can ask the Red Cross for help. You mustn't worry about me. Kiss Junie and Rachel for me. I love you. . . . Be sure to buy shoes for June."

......sure doesn't sound like a raging political assassin does he;  would have been interesting to see this printed in LIFE

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Its not much of a contribution but we do know that Oswald was thinking about shoes for his daughter; it has always amazed me that it was a concern he expressed even after he was charged and being held for murder.  That he would talk about something like that at that point in time has always blown me away but it might indicate that he truly had little clue about what was going on, that he had not done anything that he was guilty of and he suspected that it was all a bogus and he had been arrested simply because he had been in Russia as he said to the press - and that he was confident no charges would stick and he would be released or certainly not convicted.

That is nothing but pure speculation of course but talking about shoes for  your child while being held for the murder of the president is pretty darn strange for someone who knows he has just committed two murders.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

(To his Wife.) "Oh, no, they have not been beating me. They are treating me fine. . . . You're not to worry about that. Did you bring June and Rachel? . . . Of course we can speak about absolutely anything at all. . . . It's a mistake. I'm not guilty. There are people who will help me. There is a lawyer in New York on whom I am counting for help. . . . Don't cry. There is nothing to cry about. Try not to think about it. . . . Everything is going to be all right. If they ask you anything, you have a right not to answer. You have a right to refuse. Do you understand? . . . You are not to worry. You have friends. They'll help you. If it comes to that, you can ask the Red Cross for help. You mustn't worry about me. Kiss Junie and Rachel for me. I love you. . . . Be sure to buy shoes for June."

......sure doesn't sound like a raging political assassin does he;  would have been interesting to see this printed in LIFE

An interesting perspective Larry.  Maybe I've read this before but it went right over my head and I have forgotten it.  It's almost like he doesn't have a clue, or faith in those he worked for would exonerate him.  "There are people who will help me."  "You have friends.  They'll help you."

[Ed LeDoux]

Mrs. PAINE - He did give her, I think, $10, just prior, or some time close to the time of the assassination, because she planned to buy some shoes.
Mr. JENNER - Shoes for herself, or her children?
Mrs. PAINE - For herself, flat s. But when he gave that to her I am not certain. I do know that we definitely planned to go out on Friday afternoon, the 22d of November, to buy those shoes. We did not go.
Mr. JENNER - That is you girls planned to do that?
Mrs. PAINE - She and I did; yes.

 

Where would they go shopping isnt asked.

Cheers, Ed

[Andrej Stancak]

Ed:

if you prefer believing in Depository->Brewer shoe store scenario, it is your choice - I cannot believe in speculations with no positive data supporting your scenario. There are no data to support your theory except your allegation that all people seeing Oswald in 1026 North Beckley before the assassination had lied and all law enforcement officers coming to North Beckley after the shooting were part of a monstrous cover up. They all pretended, including Mr. and Mrs. Johnsone and Earlene Roberts, that there was a police search in North Beckley for Lee Oswald. Later, many of them lied under oath about 1026 North Beckley.

However, you again avoided the point I am mostly concerned about: where did Lee Oswald change his grey work pants and his light-red (some say maroon) shirt CE151 for the black-looking trousers and dark brown-red (burgundy) shirt CE150? You have a choice: 1. Lee Oswald did change his clothes after he left the Depository and before he was arrested and he could then be considered as Prayer Man candidate, or 2. He left the Depository (route unknown but taking neither the bus-taxi route nor light-coloured Rambler route) and went directly to Brewer's shoe store to wait for Marina and Ruth and children (they never admitted such meeting in Oak Cliff on Friday noon, they rather listened to a broadcast covering President's visit) without changing the clothes he wore on Friday morning. That would mean he had the dark trousers and dark looking shirt on him while at work, and the colours of this garment would exclude the possibility of Oswald being Prayer Man.

Edited March 1, 2020 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

6 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

That he would talk about something like that at that point in time has always blown me away but it might indicate that he truly had little clue about what was going on, that he had not done anything that he was guilty of and he suspected that it was all a bogus and he had been arrested simply because he had been in Russia as he said to the press - and that he was confident no charges would stick and he would be released or certainly not convicted

Larry:

this goes to the heart of the whole mystery called Lee Oswald. I agree that his statement about taking him because he was in Russia and another statement "I don't know what is all this about" suggest that he did not have any awareness of being involved in any of killings on Friday, November 22.

However, that would also mean that somebody knew his history well, that he was closely followed before the assassination and especially during the day of assassination, and that his address in Dallas was known to Police in advance of his arrest. A large number of people would need to be involved in this type of framing of an innocent man, a father of a young family,  and some of them would consent to murdering  both JFK and Officer Tippitt. 

There is an intermediate possibility: Lee Oswald was not part of the JFKA plot but he realised that he may be considered as accessory to the fact because of his knowledge of some activities surrounding JFK's visit (or even more). That would be along the line that Lee was involved in some intelligence games which he did not understand fully. It was for this reason of realising that he was in precarious position after the shooting that he decided to leave the Depository. Leaving the place which was the epicentre of the crime just a few minutes after the shooting without any effort on his part to understand what has happened appears strange. Lee Oswald was a political man, admired Kennedy, and it would fit much better his style if he stayed in or around the building to find out as much as he could. How probable is to leave the building from which the shots could have been fired and be in the cinema in Oak Cliff some 35 minutes later just to watch a movie as if nothing happened? Was watching the film more important to Lee Oswald than the killing of President?  Or, in support of some intelligence games played with Lee Oswald, was he supposed to meet someone in Texas Theatre? (I read your book Someone Would Have Talked).

I do not pretend knowing which type and degree of Oswald's involvement is the most likely one. If Lee was somehow aware of a group of people who could commit the assassination and if those people were associated with intelligence or government, he would likely say that he did not understand his situation and that he expects someone to come forward to help him with legal assistance, and he would be feeling sure he would be exculpated. If he knew who was framing him and still did not say right away, there was some reason for it, and this could be the reason for his own demise only two days later. 

Late edit: Lee Oswald could have been left out of the loop for his entire Dallas period after his sheep dipping in New Orleans. In New Orleans, Lee Oswald liaised with ultra-right, anti-Kennedy people such as Guy Banister and David Ferrie. He might have been aware, even if only from their anti-Kennedy rants, that an assassination was in the air. He went back to Dallas and was relatively on his own during October and November. However, when shots rang out he realised, based on what he heard in New Orleans, that the assassination happened and that he may be the patsy whom the plan assumed to have. That would explain both his low political activity in Dallas (compared to New Orleans) and his fleeing the assassination scene. Lee Oswald was also very concerned about FBI agent Hosty's visits to Irving. He might have associate these visits with his New Orleans links and felt uneasy about being associated with ultra-right forces discussing killing the President. 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2020 by Andrej Stancak

[Larry Hancock]

Andrej, I tend to lean towards a variant of your last edit comment,  modified by the fact that Oswald was having some dealings with individuals who were under observation by the FBI in Dallas....as per Hosty's comment about his being observed with subversives only a short while before the assassination.  While I think he was being manipulated by those same people, actually a subset of them, it was something that might have made him nervous at first and much more so later - but not guilty, even as an accessory when he was making the comments in the previous post.

In terms of framing him, its really important to separate the massive amount of questionable "evidence" that was introduced in the days and weeks after the assassination from the actual crime scene evidence pointing to him, which I feel was minimal.  Any professional operation worth its salt could produce better stuff than the material we continue to debates..even better pocket litter.  All without a ton of people being involved.

I'll be dealing with my own opinions on Oswald in my thesis paper which should be out by summer, hopefully I can do a better job setting a context there than in these sorts of threads.  I would say that your New Orleans comment is right on, bottom line is that he was a perfect patsy for pointing towards Castro and Cuba based on New Orleans,  to sell that story nothing much more was needed in Dallas, in fact it was better to have him with a low profile - that earlier letter to CPUSA about "going underground' should have sealed the deal - but of course that was the last thing the conspiracy cover up wanted so it didn't appear in LIFE magazine along with the photo of him with a rifle, a pistol and newspaper.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

Larry: I look forward to reading your new paper. It may be a good idea to make a thread here on EF to discuss your theses.

Interestingly, I agree with Ed that the Police were instrumental in framing Lee Oswald. However, I believe in a subtle framing in which the plotters used Lee's past activities to their advantage and did not need to change too much - they rather adjusted to what Lee gave them. Anyway, I would also postpone my version of Lee's framing until I do some more work.

[Larry Hancock]

I'm in agreement Andrej, with one tweak (grin).  As far as the conspiracy goes I think the frame was fairly minimal, certainly the parts we see - although there may have been more which did not come into play with Oswald being taken into custody, alive, so quickly. Given his past media exposure, connecting him to the shooting was certainly enough as far as bringing Castro and Cuba into the equation.  And I don't think the conspiracy involved a scenario of Oswald as a lone nut,  in fact just the opposite.

However after the fact, it became necessary to make him a lone nut, to wipe out all traces of his association with others, of multiple shooters, of an actual conspiracy.  That was a nightmare, it had to be done as quickly as possible, both with the evidence and with the autopsy and as I've said before it was "iterative", things kept being added, loose ends were left all over the place and a great many things which did go into evidence an the official story would never have survived in a competent legal process or trial (which of course probably would not have happened in Dallas regardless).

I'll be happy to discuss my thesis paper here when it is done, it will go up on MFF and on my WEB site.  But it will of course be strictly my take on the conspiracy and will certainly not be "bullet proof" ....still, as my guru Ricky Nelson once sang, "you can't please everybody so you might as well please  yourself".

[Steve Thomas]

5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I'll be dealing with my own opinions on Oswald in my thesis paper which should be out by summer,

Larry,

What do you think of Pat Puckett Hall’s thesis in this article,

Hall remembers Lee Oswald, life at Beckley Avenue rooming house

https://www.hsvvoice.com/news/20200224/hall-remembers-lee-oswald-life-at-beckley-avenue-rooming-house

wherein she wrote that,

<QUOTE>

‘... research puts Oswald in proximity with anti-Castro Cubans and at the same time belonging to a pro-Castro group, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Some speculate he may have been meeting with members of the violent anti-Castro group called Alpha 66.”

“Plus, there is a report made by Buddy Walthers of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, dated Nov. 23, 1963, in which Walthers reports Cubans had been hanging out at 3128 Harlandale Street which is just a couple of miles from the rooming house. The report also states that Walther’s informant told him Oswald had been seen at this house.”

“...he was given the job of getting the real assassin in and out of the Texas School Book Depository without being seen. “That still makes him guilty of conspiracy in the assassination, but that does not make him guilty of the actual assassination,” she said.”

<ENDQUOTE>

 

I myself believe that the Rambler could very well have have belonged to Raoul Castro of the Dallas chapter of Alpha 66 and that the Dark Complected Man was Manuel Rodrigiez Orcarberro, who was also the dark-complected person seen by Roger Craig driving that Rambler.

Her thesis does not sound out of bounds for me. He may not have known what the real assassin's intentions were, and once he realized what happened, that would explain his departure from the TSBD and his quick trip to the Rooming House to get his pistol.

 

Steve Thomas

Edited March 1, 2020 by Steve Thomas