Why Jeremy Bojczuk is wrong about the Harvey & Lee theory and Lifton's body alteration theory.

[Jim Hargrove]

Also for RCD....

Wesley Frazier, who said that he was talking with some women a few minutes after the shooting at the corner of Elm and Houston, said he saw Oswald as he walked south on Houston St. Frazier said that he saw Oswald cross Houston St., begin walking east on Elm St., and disappear into the crowd. 

CLICK HERE for Wesley Frazier interview (pertinent part starts at 33:00, but please continue to watch for a couple of minutes).

Note that both the Beckley and the Marsalis buses arrived at the TSBD on Elm Street.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

On 9/9/2020 at 3:58 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Robert Charles-Dunne writes:

There's a remarkable number of things which can be explained plausibly without needing to use the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger theory:

(a) Oswald's impersonation in Mexico City and Dallas - no doppelgangers are required in order to explain this.

Except for the fact that there was OBVIOUSLY a false Oswald in Mexico City, though it may only have been on paper.  So what?

Quote

(b) The framing of Oswald for the assassination, before and after the event - no doppelgangers required.

Of course doppelgangers were required.  Who else showed up at the Sports Drome range all those times?

“Oswald” visits the Sports Drome Rifle Range on Oct. 26, Nov. 9, Nov. 10, and again on Nov. 17, several times creating a scene and once shooting at another guy's target;

On Nov. 2 “Oswald” visits Morgan's Gun Shop in Fort Worth.

Also on Nov. 2 “Oswald” visits the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership where he test drives a car at wrecklessly high speeds saying he would soon come into enough money to buy a new car.

On Nov. 6 or 7 “Oswald” visits the Irving Furniture Mart for a gun part and is referred to the shop where Dial Ryder works.

On Nov. 15, “Oswald” goes to the Southland Hotel parking garage (Allright Parking Systems) and applies for a job and asks how high the Southland Building is and if it had a good view of downtown Dallas.

On Nov. 20 “Oswald” hitch-hikes on the R.L. Thornton Expressway while carrying a 4 foot long package wrapped in brown paper and introduces himself to Ralph Yates as “Lee Harvey Oswald,” discusses the President's visit, and asks to be dropped across the street from the Texas School Book Depository (where Russian-speaking “Lee Harvey Oswald” is already working).

For that matter, who showed up at Robert McKeown's on Labor Day weekend trying to buy rifles from Castro's gun dealer?

Quote

(c) The assassination itself and the murder of Officer Tippit - no doppelgangers required.

You're kidding, right?  Which Oswald killed Tippit while the other was already seated inside the Texas Theater?

Quote

(d) The assassination as a conspiracy - no doppelgangers required.

Even Sylvia Meagher half a century ago knew a doppelganger was involved.

 

Quote

(e) Oswald's leaving the book depository after the assassination - no doppelgangers required.

Except for the fact that one doppelganger left Dealey Plaza on a bus and in a taxi, while the other took a Nash Rambler station wagon.

Quote

(f) Oswald's connection with one or more intelligence agencies - no doppelgangers required.

Except for the fact that the whole Russian "defection" was an intelligence operation giving an American ID to a Russian-speaking kid. 

Quote

(g) Oswald's false defection - no doppelgangers required.

Except for the fact that the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover suspected an imposter was using LHO's birth certificate. See the last line in this memo:

Quote

(h) Oswald's knowledge of Russian - no doppelgangers required.

Except for the fact that a Russian-speaking doppelganger WAS required.  See Dr. Norwood's write-up.

OSWALD'S RUSSIAN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Quote

None of these things require the existence of a long-term double-doppelganger scheme. The theory adds nothing worthwhile to our understanding of the assassination.

Other than the obvious fact that there were two Oswalds.

Quote

On the plus side, it does give the more paranoia-inclined folks a nice big conspiracy to play with. Against this, it allows lone-nut enthusiasts to portray all critics of the lone-nut theory, even the non-paranoid ones, as a bunch of crackpots (e.g. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm) .

You finally cite Mr. McAdams, eh?  Why not just salute the Warren Commission Report and call it a day?

Edited September 11, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

we do not REQUIRE that LHO learned Russian as a child, but simply believe that is what happened through a process of elimination.

In other words:

The Oswald who defected might have been a native speaker of Russian, if he had learned the language instinctively as a pre-school-age child. Or he might have been a native speaker of English who had learned an indeterminate amount of Russian uninstinctively, during his school years. We haven't made our minds up about that.

But because the defector forgot some, or most, or all of his Russian (we haven't made our minds up on that either), he had to start learning it all over again in his late teens. Fortunately, he had a head start because he had learned it years earlier, one way or another.

We know he can't have started from scratch in his teens because we can't imagine ourselves picking up Russian as quickly as Oswald did, and if we couldn't do it, no-one else could either. We can't run a sub-four-minute mile or compose a symphony or perform surgical operations, which proves to us that no-one else can either.

The masterminds in the CIA decided to go with a long-term double-doppelganger scheme rather than simply use an American with a knack for languages because, um ... because ... we're not quite sure, so we'll get back to you when we've made our minds up.

The usual objections apply:

(a) It is perfectly possible for a native English speaker with a talent for languages to pick up Russian as quickly as Oswald appears to have done. There is no need to suppose that he was anything other than a native speaker of English who began learning Russian in his teens.

(b) There is no reason to assume that a proposed long-term doppelganger scheme would have recruited as its future defector a quasi-native speaker of Russian who had forgotten some of the language he had learned instinctively as a young child. There was a far easier and more obvious method available which did not require any doppelgangers at all, whatever their history with the Russian language.

The Witnesses

All of Jim's witness statements are consistent with the common-sense idea that Oswald was a native English-speaking American:

Rosaleen Quinn, who had recently begun a Berlitz course in Russian, "commented that she thought OSWALD spoke Russian well for someone who had not attended a formal course in the language" (WC Hearings, vol.24, p.430 ). In other words, he was better than she had expected, but he gave her no reason to suppose that he was not a native English speaker with a talent for languages.

Erwin Lewis said that Oswald "could read, write and speak Russian". Lewis gives no indication that he knew any Russian himself. He almost certainly wouldn't have been able to tell a beginner from an expert, and couldn't have known how good Oswald's Russian was.

Zack Stout had no memory of Oswald speaking or learning Russian in Japan and the Philipines nearly 40 years earlier. So much for Mr Stout.

Richard Bullock shared a bunkhouse with Oswald and 74 other men, didn't often work in the same section as Oswald, didn't socialise with him, didn't recall the names of any of Oswald's other Marine buddies, and didn't recall known events in Oswald's life in Japan. He thought the Oswald he saw on TV in 1963 looked different to the man he recalled. His memories, too, were several decades old. He had nothing to say about Oswald's Russian. So much for Mr Bullock.

Quote

De Mohrenschildt ... noted that he made grammatical errors, just as you would expect from someone who learned a language at an early age and then abandoned it for a decade or so.

Or ... just as you would expect from someone who began learning a foreign language in his teens and then lived among native speakers for two and a half years. De Mohrenschildt's description is of a native English-speaking American who, by the time of his return to the US, had learned Russian to a reasonable level.

Why Bother with Doppelgangers?

Jim's suggestion doesn't make the double-doppelganger scheme any less incoherent. The notion of a defector Oswald who had somehow learned Russian as a child, but who had forgotten much of it, doesn't add up.

Why recruit someone as a future defector, keep him in the doppelganger scheme for several years while allowing his Russian to wither away, and then get him to brush up his Russian only a year or so before his defection?

If his native or near-native Russian was what made him suitable as a future defector, why let it wither away? Surely the masterminds would have been able to supply him with enough practice so that he could retain the very skill which led him to be chosen in the first place?

Why devise a long-term doppelganger scheme to provide your non-American defector with a false but plausible American background when you could use a genuine American with a genuine American background instead?

The point I've been making still stands: whether Oswald's Russian was that of a native speaker or not, the 'Harvey and Lee' long-term double-doppelganger scheme would never have been set up. The masterminds behind the scheme could have achieved their goal in a far simpler, quicker and more practical way.

They needed someone with a plausible American background who could understand spoken Russian. They had millions of genuine Americans to choose from, many thousands of whom must have had sufficient motivation and aptitude to learn Russian to a reasonable but far from expert level in a relatively short time. The obvious solution was to recruit an American with a talent for languages, get him up to speed in Russian, and send him off to Moscow.

Why did the masterminds not do that?

Edited September 11, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a trivial typo

[Greg Doudna]

On 9/10/2020 at 7:14 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

Of course doppelgangers were required.  Who else showed up at the Sports Drome range all those times?

“Oswald” visits the Sports Drome Rifle Range on Oct. 26, Nov. 9, Nov. 10, and again on Nov. 17, several times creating a scene and once shooting at another guy's target;

On Nov. 2 “Oswald” visits Morgan's Gun Shop in Fort Worth.

Also on Nov. 2 “Oswald” visits the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership where he test drives a car at wrecklessly high speeds saying he would soon come into enough money to buy a new car.

On Nov. 6 or 7 “Oswald” visits the Irving Furniture Mart for a gun part and is referred to the shop where Dial Ryder works.

On Nov. 15, “Oswald” goes to the Southland Hotel parking garage (Allright Parking Systems) and applies for a job and asks how high the Southland Building is and if it had a good view of downtown Dallas.

On Nov. 20 “Oswald” hitch-hikes on the R.L. Thornton Expressway while carrying a 4 foot long package wrapped in brown paper and introduces himself to Ralph Yates as “Lee Harvey Oswald,” discusses the President's visit, and asks to be dropped across the street from the Texas School Book Depository (where Russian-speaking “Lee Harvey Oswald” is already working).

For that matter, who showed up at Robert McKeown's on Labor Day weekend trying to buy rifles from Castro's gun dealer?

You're kidding, right?  Which Oswald killed Tippit while the other was already seated inside the Texas Theater?

Jim Hargrove, the Sports Drome shooter was never claimed by any witness there as having identified himself as Oswald. The only reason to suppose he had anything to do with Oswald was because people after the assassination thought the shooter looked like the Oswald they saw on television. Since there is nothing other than similar appearance as the basis for identifying this figure with Oswald, and since mistaken identifications based on similar appearance, in cases of people who have encountered someone only briefly, are a common phenomenon, why assume anyone was intentionally impersonating Oswald in these Sports Drome episodes, simply because they looked like him, which is an accident of birth and not of intention? As BATF agent Frank Ellsworth suggested, the similar-appearing accidental Oswald-lookalike Masen, who was involved with and had expertise in firearms including Mannlicher-Carcanos, is a more likely identity of the shooter at the Sports Dome, than Oswald, or an "Oswald double".

On the Downtown Lincoln Mercury, see my post of an hour ago under the topic "Wesley Frazier--there was no gun". In short, the person who took a test drive of a car at that dealership and who identified himself as Oswald trivially and simply was Oswald, not a mistaken identification, not an imposter, not a doppelganger.

The Southland Parking Garage person reads to me probably as Oswald, with no need to posit impersonator or doppelganger.

On. the Nov 20 Ralph Yates hitchhiker, I think you err in saying the hitch-hiker "introduce[d] himself to Ralph Yates as “Lee Harvey Oswald,”". I checked Yates' statements in his FBI interviews, and I can find nowhere that Ralph Yates claimed the hitchhiker identified himself as Oswald. Yates, after Nov 22 and seeing Oswald on TV, identified his Nov 20 hitchhiker as Oswald, but nothing in Yates' FBI statements says the hitchhiker himself did so. I agree that story is strange, but most likely Yates' statements to the FBI of Jan 4, 1964, which to some extent correct some of his earlier statements, of https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96528&search=ralph_yates#relPageId=33&tab=page, puts this in better context. It seems that Yates, who very sadly, and in no way do I mean this as a criticism of Yates personally, had a family and personal history of severe mental illness and his own writings to the FBI found on the Mary Ferrell site show severe hallucinatory interpretations of mundane events, had picked up a hitchhiker who he connected with Oswald from some things in conversation, but that does not mean he encountered a real Oswald or a real doppelganger. If there was a case for an intentional impersonation of Oswald, the Yates hitchhiker might be it--conceivably an accidental witness to the gun of the sniper perch entering the TSBD two days before the assassination--but Yates is such an uncertain witness. But if it was an intentional impersonation of Oswald, some pre-assassination framing of Oswald in advance, this would not be a lifelong doppelganger but some targeted operation at that time. However a mental-disturbance explanation of Yates' testimony seems at least equally likely to me. In all of these various witness testimonies it is necessary to make judgment calls. Do you honestly judge a lifelong doppelganger is the most likely explanation of the Yates' witness testimony?

On Tippit, it seems just obvious to me that the two logical alternatives are either (a) Oswald did it, or (b) someone else did it other than Oswald and Oswald was framed by Dallas police as the killer, but there is no reason to suppose, if "b", that (c) the killer also was a lifelong doppelganger or intentional impersonator of Oswald. That does not at all logically follow. 

The other items you name (Morgan's Gun Shop, Irving Furniture Mart, and Robert McKeown) I have nothing productive to offer and no comment because have not studied those. But except for the unrelated and distinct case of the CIA voice impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City which I believe is clear, as a basic operating principle I suspect all of the US cases of alleged Oswald sightings are to be explained in terms of it was either Oswald or mistaken witness identification (e.g. Crafard as alleged sightings of Oswald with Ruby), without substantial evidence for any actual intentional impersonation, or doppelganger, of Oswald in the year 1963 in even a single case. (I assume that statement would be true for all years of Oswald's life, but I have not studied pre-1963 and you have, and I do not wish to engage those issues, only 1963.)

Edited September 14, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Of course doppelgangers were required.

But they weren't. Nothing in the JFK assassination story requires the existence of doppelganger Oswalds. Everything can be plausibly explained without the use of doppelgangers, and especially without the use of the far-fetched and internally incoherent 'Harvey and Lee' long-term fake Oswald and fake Marguerite double-doppelganger scheme.

Impersonators are not the same thing as doppelgangers. The impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City didn't involve a doppelganger. If, as Greg Doudna points out, any of the incidents in Dallas were more than cases of mistaken identity, they didn't require doppelgangers either, just impersonators. I'm sure Jim understands this.

Quote

Which Oswald killed Tippit while the other was already seated inside the Texas Theater? ... one doppelganger left Dealey Plaza on a bus and in a taxi, while the other took a Nash Rambler station wagon. ... the whole Russian "defection" was an intelligence operation giving an American ID to a Russian-speaking kid.

And so on. Repeating poorly supported 'Harvey and Lee' talking points isn't the same thing as demonstrating that doppelgangers were involved in any of these scenarios. Perhaps Jim would like to take one example and demonstrate why his double-doppelganger explanation is the only possible explanation, or even the most plausible explanation. Until he does, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is superfluous; it explains nothing that doesn't have a plausible alternative explanation.

Quote

You finally cite Mr. McAdams, eh?  Why not just salute the Warren Commission Report and call it a day?

Robert Charles-Dunne has already put Jim right on this point. Does Jim genuinely believe that questioning the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense makes one a supporter of the lone-nut theory? If so, he is seriously misinformed. Or does he know, like everyone else surely does by now, that almost all the critics of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense are also critics of the Warren Commission? If so, it would be dishonest of him to imply otherwise. Which is it?

Here is the passage in the McAdams article to which I was referring:

Quote

The whole rickety ['Harvey and Lee'] structure is built on unreliable witness testimony, carefully selected and inaccurate documents, and a mountain of implausible supposition. Which makes it a fitting metaphor for JFK assassination conspiracy theories generally.

That illustrates the point I was making: far-fetched speculation such as the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy allows lone-nut supporters such as McAdams (or whoever wrote the article) to lump legitimate Warren Commission critics with those who peddle crackpot theories.

P,S. On the shaky subject of bus and taxi naysayers, there's a whole lot of naysaying going on here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2286-are-you-a-naysayer

[Denny Zartman]

On 9/11/2020 at 4:17 AM, Greg Doudna said:

In short, the person who took a test drive of a car at that dealership and who identified himself as Oswald trivially and simply was Oswald, not a mistaken identification, not an imposter, not a doppelganger.

If this is so, then why did Ruth Paine say that Oswald could not drive?

[Jim Hargrove]

To Greg Doudna,

The WC rejected all the Sports Drome Oswald identifications for various reasons, including that one Oswald had a non Oswaldian hat and was chewing something and another drove a car, which the Commission indicated Oswald couldn’t do.  (There is, however,  a trainload of evidence that one LHO did indeed have a car and in fact had a valid Texas drivers license--see below.)

The most convincing witnesses were Dr. Homer Wood and his 13-year-old son Sterling.  In describing who they saw at the Sports Drome rifle range, both father and son independently right after the assassination recognized the man each had seen at the range just six days before the assassination. Both Dr. Wood and his son testified and were convincing witnesses. 

The Woods were so believable Sylvia Meagher considered the possibility that LHO was indeed at the range that day.  The trouble is, Ms. Meagher wrote on an earlier page of her book that the FBI collected rifle shells from various locations, “including 23 pounds of shells from the Sports Drome Rifle Range… [but] failed to turn up a single shell that came from the Carcano alleged to belong to Oswald. (CE 3049)”  

On the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership: According to the Warren Commission, Classic Oswald® did not have a drivers license.  But Texas law required a drivers license to test drive any automobile. Ball certainly should have asked Bogard if he checked LHO’s drivers license but, of course, he didn’t. Have you ever heard of anyone from an automobile dealership handing car keys to a driver without first seeing a license? There is an obvious explanation.

One of the LHOs DID have a drivers license.

The LHO who had a Texas drivers license was seen by many people hanging around with Jack Ruby, including during the summer of 1963 when Classic Oswald® was still in New Orleans.  

For just one example, consider the 10-page FBI report on a 1977 interview with a Ruby employee named Odell “James” Estes.  Estes told the FBI he worked at the Carousel Club from the last week in June until Sept. 2, 1963. 

Estes said he saw “Lee Oswald” at the Carousel Club many times during his employment there, including in Jack Ruby’s office.  He said he once drove Oswald to Love Field and even took two overnight fishing trips with Oswald to a lakeside cabin near Mineral Wells.  He described lengthy talks with this Oswald.  Since he (Estes) stopped working at the club on Sept. 2, he was quite certain that the two fishing trips, just a week apart, were both in August 1963.

Of course, in August 1963, Classic Oswald® was still in New Orleans.  Despite this depiction of “Oswald” being in New Orleans and Dallas simultaneously, an FBI cover memo states that Estes was “willing to submit to a polygraph examination” and “talked very coherently and did not evidence the mannerisms frequently associated with a mentally disturbed individual.”  It should be noted that although the 1977 FBI report indicated Estes was “80 percent blind,” in 1963 he could see well enough to drive a car.

A 10-page report on Odell Estes’ FBI interview can be read on the Mary Ferrell site at the link below:

Odell Estes FBI Report

[Greg Doudna]

13 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

If this is so, then why did Ruth Paine say that Oswald could not drive?

Because that was what she observed based on his not having a drivers license and when she gave him parking lessons? But Ruth directly told the Warren Commission that Oswald had driven the two of them--Oswald and Ruth--in Ruth's car for three or more blocks (see below)--to Ruth's irritation (Oswald had gotten in the drivers seat of her car, turned the ignition, and started driving with Ruth in the car). It seems when Ruth said Oswald did not know how to drive she meant safely and legally at an acceptable standard of skill. She herself had witnessed that Oswald demonstrably was capable of driving a car on city streets from point A to point B. Analogous to Bogard the salesman saying that prospective auto purchaser Oswald had driven "like a maniac" in the test drive at the dealership. Both Ruth Paine and Bogard telling what they observed, pretty similar to each other in their respective reports. Ruth Paine said she would not consider lending Oswald her personal car in light of what she saw of his driving, and from Bogard's testimony it sounds like Bogard would have agreed 100% with Ruth on that point.  

Mr. JENNER - Mr. Dulles, would you be good enough to let me have it? This translation which appears as Commission Exhibit 424, the fourth paragraph reads "Lee told me that he learned a little from his Uncle how to drive a car. It would be very useful for him to know how to drive but it is hard to find time for this when he works every day." 
Mrs. PAINE - I might make a comment about that. 
Mr. JENNER - This is your comment, is it not? 
Mrs. PAINE - I might make a comment about that. 
Mr. JENNER - This is your comment, is it not? 
Mrs. PAINE - I wrote that. 
Mr. JENNER - Now, the Commission is very interested in the subject matter of Mr. Oswald, of Lee Oswald being able to drive a car and I think it might be well if we covered the whole subject from the beginning to the end.
Would you give the Commission your full, most accurate recollection of this whole subject? Start at the very beginning. 
Mrs. PAINE - I think I learned either in March or April that Lee 
Mr. JENNER - Of 1963? 
Mrs. PAINE - 1963. 
Mr. JENNER - This would be early in your acquaintance with him? 
Mrs. PAINE - Very early. I leaned Lee was not able to drive and didn't have a license. 
Mr. JENNER - How did you learn he was not able to drive? 
Mrs. PAINE - I think it was related to his looking for work the first time in the middle of April, and I had learned he had looked in the Dallas area for work. 
Mr. JENNER - How did you learn it? 
Mrs. PAINE - We were talking about it. 
Mr. JENNER - You were talking with Lee? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. 
Mr. JENNER - Did he tell you that he was not able to drive a car? 
Mrs. PAINE - That he had never learned how. 
Mr. JENNER - That he had difficulty in getting around? 
Mrs. PAINE - Simply he had never learned how. 
Mr. JENNER - He said this to you? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. And I felt immediately that his job opportunities, the jobs to which he could have applied, and the jobs to which he could get himself would be greatly broadened if he were able to drive and said so.
Mr. JENNER - You said that to him? 
Mrs. PAINE - And said that to him. Then when we arrived in New Orleans he said to me by way of almost pride that he had been allowed by his uncle to drive his uncle's car. 
Mr. JENNER - That is Mr. Murret? 
Mrs. PAINE - I don't know whether there was more than one. 
Mr. JENNER - But he volunteered the statement to you? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. 
Mr. JENNER - And it was something that had occurred after he had gotten to New Orleans? 
Mrs. PAINE - And he was in a sense pleased to report to me that he was getting some experience driving. That his uncle had permitted him to drive the car on the street. 
Mr. JENNER - On the street? 
Mrs. PAINE - On the street. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you have occasion while you were in New Orleans to verify that in any respect whatsoever? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Or have it verified to you? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - This was confined to a remark that he made to you? 
Mrs. PAINE - That is right. Then when I learned in Marina's letter of August 11 that Lee was out of work, I immediately thought it would be well for him to make use of those free weekdays, not only for job hunting but for learning the skill of driving and, therefore, that paragraph--shall we read it? 
Mr. JENNER - Haven't I already read it? 
Mrs. PAINE - No; I don't think so. 
Mr. JENNER - You mean from your letter? 
Mrs. PAINE - Did you read that? 
Mr. JENNER - The paragraph "Lee told me that he learned a little from his uncle how to drive a car." 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you read that "It would be very useful for him to know how to drive but it is hard to find time for this when he works every day-"
Just to be certain of this, Mrs. Paine, this was a remark made to you by Lee Harvey Oswald when you brought Marina from Irving, Tex., to New Orleans, and-- 
Mrs. PAINE - The second week in May. 
Mr. JENNER - The second week in May of 1963. And then, according to the remark made to you by Lee Harvey Oswald that his uncle had permitted him to drive his uncle's car on the street in New Orleans? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; and he was proud of this. 
Mr. JENNER - Did he ask at that time or any time while you were in New Orleans in the spring to drive your car? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Was there any discussion at all during--did you have the feeling that he would like to drive the car? 
Mrs. PAINE - There was no discussion of it. 
Mr. JENNER - Did he demonstrate to you that he could drive? 
Mrs. PAINE - There was no discussion of it. 
Mr. JENNER - You have given us all that occurred in New Orleans by way of conversation or otherwise on the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald driving an automobile or his ability to drive? 
Mrs. PAINE - That is right. 
Mr. JENNER - Now, you are telling us the whole story on this subject. So when next 
Senator COOPER - May I ask this one question? 
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me. 
Senator COOPER - Did Lee Oswald identify the uncle who permitted him to drive his car? 
Mrs. PAINE - Senator Cooper, he did not. He just said his uncle. He did not identify his uncle by name. 
Senator COOPER - Do you know of your own knowledge who the uncle was? 
Mrs. PAINE - I can only assume. 
Senator COOPER - What? 
Mrs. PAINE - I can only assume it was the uncle he had been staying with. He had been staying at his home. 
Mr. JENNER - You had met the uncle at this time? 
Mrs. PAINE - Just met him. 
Mr. JENNER - So it was the uncle with whom he had been staying just before he obtained the apartment at Magazine? 
Mr. McCLOY - What is the uncle's name? 
Mr. JENNER - Dutz Murret. This was the relative who had the nice home that Marina first saw when she arrived there and thought maybe that is where she was going to live, is that correct? 
Mrs. PAINE - That is correct. 
Mr. JENNER - Go ahead, Mrs. Paine. 
Mrs. PAINE - You want all other references to driving? 
Mr. JENNER - Confining yourself to his ability to drive automobiles, when next, and take it in chronological order as to when you next recall it? 
Mrs. PAINE - It came up next after he returned to the Dallas area in October. 
Mr. JENNER - When was that? 
Mrs. PAINE - After he returned on the 4th, to my knowledge. 
Mr. JENNER - The 4th of October? 
Mrs. PAINE - That was the first I know. 
Mr. JENNER - We will get into the reasons and the circumstances but you stick with the automobile incidents. 
Mrs. PAINE - He was looking for work. 
Mr. JENNER - In Dallas? 
Mrs. PAINE - In the Dallas area and again, of course, I felt that he could find more jobs, be eligible for more if he could drive. 
Mr. JENNER - What did you do about it? 
Mrs. PAINE - I recalled that I had a copy of the regulations for driving, what you need to know to pass the written test. 
Mr. JENNER - In what State? 
Mrs. PAINE - In the State of Texas, and I gave him that booklet. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you have a discussion with him about your desire, your recommendation, that he qualify to drive an automobile in Texas so it would assist him in connection with his job hunting. 
Mrs. PAINE - Probably. We certainly had conversation about it. 
Mr. JENNER - Give us the subject of the conversation in terms of recommendations by you, or what did you say? 
Mrs. PAINE - I again recommended, as I had in the spring, that he learn to drive. 
Mr. JENNER - What did he say? 
Mrs. PAINE - He was interested in learning to drive. 
Mr. JENNER - Did he say anything to you? 
Mrs. PAINE - I would like to offer to the Commission something we didn't get to last night. 
Mr. JENNER - I see. 
Mrs. PAINE - Which is a letter I wrote to my mother, which she just showed me recently, she just found it recently, which makes reference to the date I first gave him a lesson in driving. 
Mr. JENNER - That would be helpful to us. May I have the letter, please? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Now only a portion of it is applicable. 
Mr. JENNER - Why don't we give it a number? 
Mrs. PAINE - Another portion is applicable in another connection, which I would like especially to bring up. 
Mr. JENNER - Having that in mind, we will give that document for identification at the moment only, the number Commission Exhibit No. 425.
I won't identify it beyond that for the moment because the witness will be using it to refresh her recollection. 
Mrs. PAINE - I will read what applies here. 
Mr. JENNER - You are now reading from Commission Exhibit No. 425. 
Mrs. PAINE - Which is a letter dated October 14, in my hand, from me to my mother. 
Mr. DULLES - Would you give your mother's name? 
Mrs. PAINE - Her name is Mrs. Carol Hyde. 
Representative BOGGS - Where does she live? 
Mrs. PAINE - In Columbus, Ohio. It was likely written to Oberlin, where she was a student at that time.
"If Lee can just find work that will help so much. Meantime I started giving him driving lessons last Sunday (yesterday). If he can drive this will open up more job possibilities and more locations." 
Mr. JENNER - Yes. 
Mrs. PAINE - I want to comment too on the nature of this lesson. 
Mr. JENNER - The Commission will be interested in that but you go ahead. 
Mrs. PAINE - Now? 
Mr. JENNER - Go right ahead. 
Mrs. PAINE - I knew that he had not even a learner's permit to drive. I wasn't interested in his driving on the street with my car until he had such. But on Sunday the parking lot of a neighboring shopping center was empty, and I am quite certain that is where the driving lesson took place. 
Mr. JENNER - That is your best present recollection? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Now I recall this also, and it is significant. I offered him a lesson and intended to drive him to this area for him to practice. He, however, started the car. 
Mr. JENNER - He got in and started the car? 
Mrs. PAINE - He got in and started the car so that I know he was able to do that and wanted to drive on the street to the parking lot. 
Mr. JENNER - He wanted to? 
Mrs. PAINE - He wanted to. I said, "My father is an insurance man and he would never forgive me." 
Mr. JENNER - Your father? 
Mrs. PAINE - My father. And insisted that he get a learner's permit before he would drive on the street. 
Mr. JENNER - At that moment and at that time he acted, in any event in your presence, as though he himself thought-- 
Mrs. PAINE - That is right. 
Mr. JENNER - He would be capable of driving an automobile from your home to the parking area in which you were about to give him a lesson. That was your full impression, was it not? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. I should add that, as I am recalling, he did drive a portion of the way, he drove in fact, it is about three blocks, to the parking lot. I was embarrassed to just tell him "No, don't." But I did, in. effect, on the way there, when he was on the street, driving on the street in my car, when we got there I said, "Now, I am going to drive back." I didn't want him to. 
Mr. JENNER - From your home to the parking lot? 
Mrs. PAINE - The first time before we had any lesson at all. And at that time I made it clear I didn't want him to drive in the street. Also, it became clear to me in that lesson that he was very unskilled in driving. We practiced a number of the things you need to know, to back up, to turn, right angle turn to come to a stop. 
Mr. JENNER - Was this on the parking lot? 
Mrs. PAINE - This was all on a parking lot. 
Mr. DULLES - Did I understand you to say he drove three blocks, was that all the way to the parking lot? So he drove all the way to the parking lot? 
Mrs. PAINE - Perhaps a little longer. But a short distance, whatever it was, to the parking lot, yes. Rather than stopping in midstreet and changing drivers. Going to turn a right angle---- 
Mr. DULLES - How well did he do on that? 
Mr. McCLOY - That is what she is telling. 
Mrs. PAINE - No; that is a separate answer. 
Mr. JENNER - She is talking about the parking lot. 
Mrs. PAINE - I was very nervous while he was doing it and was not at all happy about his doing it. I would say he did modestly well; but no means skilled in coming to a stop and turning a square right angle at a corner.
Mr. JENNER - Was there much traffic? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. But then too, I noticed when we got to the parking lot when he attempted to turn in a right angle he made the usual mistake of a beginner of turning too much and then having to correct it. He was not familiar with the delay of the steering wheel in relation to the wheels, actual wheels of the power-- 
Mr. JENNER - Was it power-- 
Mrs. PAINE - It was not power steering. But it has no clutch so that makes it a lot easier to drive. 
Mr. JENNER - It is an automatic transmission? 
Mrs. PAINE - It is an automatic transmission. 

[Denny Zartman]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

It seems when Ruth said Oswald did not know how to drive she meant safely and legally at an acceptable standard of skill. She herself had witnessed that Oswald demonstrably was capable of driving a car on city streets from point A to point B. Analogous to Bogard the salesman saying that prospective auto purchaser Oswald had driven "like a maniac" in the test drive at the dealership.

Pardon me, but where is your source for the Bogard quote characterizing Oswald driving "like a maniac"? I am unable to find any quote from Bogard where he characterizes Oswald as driving "like a maniac."

If someone can drive high speeds on the highway, then they can drive. Someone who cannot drive cannot drive 60-70 miles an hour on the expressway.

Quote

Mr. BALL. You took a ride with him?

353

Mr. BOGARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he drive, or did you drive it?
Mr. BOGARD. He drove it.
Mr. BALL. Drive it right out of the shop, or did you drive it first and then----
Mr. BOGARD. No; he drove it right offhand. He got in driving it.
Mr. BALL. Did he appear to know how to drive the car?
Mr. BOGARD. Well, he had drove before, I'm sure, because he took off.
Mr. BALL. Did he----
Mr. BOGARD. He might have drove a little reckless, but other than that, he knew how to drive.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean, "He might have drove it a little reckless"?
Mr. BOGARD. Well, going 60 and 70 miles an hour right up a Freeway and took curves kind of fast.
Mr. BALL Did it appear to you that he knew how to handle the car?
Mr. BOGARD. Yes.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bogard.htm

Yet this is the same man who could barely drive three blocks on surface streets, whose apparent entire experience driving was on a total of two occasions, and apparently demonstrated to Ruth Paine, in a parking lot no less, that his driving abilities were negligible at best and it was useless to give him further instruction. There is a huge disconnect here.

You're telling me that Ruth said Oswald could not drive, but then Ruth said that he could. Okay, let's look at that.

• According to Ruth, Oswald said he never learned how to drive.
• According to Ruth, Oswald bragged to Ruth that Oswald's uncle let him drive uncle's car.
• According to Ruth, one Sunday in the first two weeks of October 1963 Oswald drove three blocks on surface streets to the parking lot for the lesson that Ruth gave him.
• According to Ruth, further driving lessons in that parking lot proved fruitless because of Oswald's demonstrated lack of basic driving ability.
• According to Albert Guy Bogard, on November 9, 1963, Oswald got into a car with Bogard (an experienced car salesman and driver), took a high-speed test drive with him on the expressway going 60-70 mph, and returned to the dealership with no notable damage to the car and no impression left on Bogard's mind that Oswald lacked driving skills.

Either Oswald could drive or he couldn't. Level of skill has little to do with it: it's the difference between a speed-reader and someone who has to point at every word and moves their lips - they can still both read.

Now it's being changed to "Oswald could drive, he just couldn't drive very well in Ruth Paine's opinion." That still answers the question: Taking Ruth Paine at her word, Oswald could indeed drive.

You believe that Oswald could get into a car with an auto salesman, drive high speeds on the expressway with that salesman, and return to the car dealership without accident and without revealing to the salesman that he, the driver, lacked the most basic driving skills. So, again the conclusion is clear: Yes, Lee Harvey Oswald could drive. Let's be clear and realistic here: if someone can get into an unfamiliar car and drive it at high speeds on the expressway without incident or accident, they can indeed drive.

So, why didn't Oswald obtain a getaway car for his escape from Dealey Plaza? When and where did he learn to drive in the span of a month? Who taught him? Did he always know how to drive and was just acting like he couldn't for Ruth's benefit? If so, why would he do such a thing?

[Denny Zartman]

Oswald's barber, Clifton M. Shasteen:

Quote

Mr. JENNER. And did you recognize any of the persons who were accompanying him?
Mr. SHASTEEN. No; I wouldn't say I did because most of the time---they headed--they got out of the car and we saw their backs, and I would see him and I just knew it was him. Once you cut somebody's hair that close you are close enough so that you know them outside or when you see them.
Mr. JENNER. So, you're not in a position, I take it, then, to say that you have a distinct recollection that Mrs. Paine accompanied them at anytime?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Well, now, that part of it I would have to take for granted because they were in his car. Now, she, I understand through one of the men who questioned me out at the shop, said he never did drive her car. Again, I'm going to disagree because I know that he did. He drove it up there and got a haircut.
Mr. JENNER. You have a distinct recollection that on occasions when this man came into your shop for a haircut, he drove an automobile up to your shop?
Mr. SHASTEEN. He drove that there 1955, I think it's a 1955, I'm sure it's a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon. It's either blue and white or green and white it's two-toned--I know that. Now, why I say--why I take it for granted that Mrs. Paine was with him when he come to the grocery store I do remember he wasn't driving when they would come to the grocery store, there would be a lady driving and I'm assuming that that' was Mrs. Paine, because like I say, I have been--I have never been close enough to her and knew it, to speak to her, but she trades at the service station where I do and I saw her in there and I never did pay any attention to her and I saw her passing, met her in the road in the car and those things.
Mr. JENNER. Were there any occasions when you have a recollection as to his being accompanied by more than one person?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; that's what I said--I saw him and two ladies get out and go in the store.
Mr. JENNER. On how many occasions did you see that?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Well, I was trying to think of that coming over here and I know of twice and one of the times that I'm saying--it was the next morning after he had gotten a haircut the night I went to the football game, the next morning they were over to the store. You see, I open up early around 7 in the morning and it was 8 o'clock, or so, not knowing the exact hour. I would say it was 8 o'clock or 8:30 when they were over at the store that Saturday morning.
Mr. JENNER. That would be the 9th of November?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; because. one reason it made me remember that, I had just come back--I had just come back from across the street to get some cigarettes and they come up and pulled in and I walked over and naturally I looked back across the street and I saw them getting out and he wasn't driving at that time. I will agree but whenever I saw him come with somebody else in the car he wasn't driving, but occasionally he drove himself up there to get a haircut and Mr. Odum says, "Now, that contradicts with some of the other information." I said, "I can't help what it contradicts with, that's just the fact and that's it."
Mr. JENNER. Was there ever an occasion when you saw him driving up that he had the 14-year-old boy-with him?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; the night he got the haircut.
Mr. JENNER. The night of November 8?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; you see the difficulty was, I was wanting to get out of giving a haircut and I had just gotten through with a guy, and I was trying to get my tools put up and they pulled up in front and I kind of left them half cocked, half cleaned up, and I ran back in the closet to try to get away, because I saw there was two of them, you see, and I figured they both would want a haircut. When they pulled up with the headlights and I saw two get out I figured they both would want a haircut.
Mr. JENNER. This was night, was it?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. And it was dark?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Well, yes; it was done dark outside I couldn't tell who they were when they drove up but he was driving that night and I was hurrying trying to get out and I went out the back door, because ordinarily, if there had been two, one of them would have wanted me to cut his hair and the other one would want the other boy to, and I thought, well, maybe they can wait and let me go to the football game. It's hard for me to get away for a football game and that night was when the boy was with him and he drove up there.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shasteen.htm

It's almost comical that after nearly sixty years we're still playing these games and can't even get a straight yes or no answer on a simple three-word question: "Could Oswald drive?"

The answer is "kinda?" What kind of answer is that? He couldn't drive well enough in an empty parking lot to warrant further lessons, a month later he was driving surface streets at night and expressways at high speeds without incident, yet less than a month later he couldn't drive well enough to make a getaway after committing the crime of the century?

At what point do reasonable people drop the fantasy?

[Dan Troyer]

Denny, very nice write up. 

Makes you also wonder who the 14-year-old boy was?

Mr. JENNER. Was there ever an occasion when you saw him driving up that he had the 14-year-old boy-with him?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; the night he got the haircut.

[Dan Troyer]

  I'm being totally "tongue-in-cheek" , maybe he only drove well, when he had on his yellow shoes. Some of this you just can't make up.  

"and the only time I ever saw him smile he had on a pair of yellow house shoes and I never saw any like them before.:

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Pardon me, but where is your source for the Bogard quote characterizing Oswald driving "like a maniac"? I am unable to find any quote from Bogard where he characterizes Oswald as driving "like a maniac."

If someone can drive high speeds on the highway, then they can drive. Someone who cannot drive cannot drive 60-70 miles an hour on the expressway.

You are correct that that quote does not appear in Bogard's testimony, who only himself testified that Oswald drove at high speed. However two other fellow employees at the dealership said Bogard told them that Oswald had driven "like a wild man", "drove so fast, he scared the daylights out of [Bogard]", "drove like a madman", "drove like he was crazy".

As a technical correction, I was writing from memory when I said "driving like a maniac"--the word "maniac" does not appear in these hearsay testimonies of what Bogard's colleagues say Bogard told them of his test drive with Oswald, but I think "maniac" is reasonably synonymous as to sense of the descriptions that the two others did say Bogard had described to them.

Frank Pizzo, sales manager, from WC testimony:

Mr. Pizzo.

We looked for the card too--we went right back again and did the same thing, and he [Bogard] helped look for it and we had the colored boy there helping us looking for it and then when some FBI men came there they went in there and looked for it.

Mr. Jenner.

We became very interested in that.

Mr. Pizzo.

Me too. So, I kind of said, "Are you kidding us or what? You [Bogard] either have his name or you don't." He said, "Well, Frank, don't you remember?" I said, "I don't remember." He said "I brought him to your office and you said he needed $200 or $300 down, and I said, "Yes, I guess I remember." He said, "Well, you should remember because when I took that man for a ride he drove like a wild man, and besides we had Gene Wilson's car and Gene got mad because we used up all his gas." He said, "He drove so fast, he scared the daylights out of me. Don't you remember me coming back and saying how mad I was?"
I said, "I just don't remember that particular moment." That's how he was trying to get me to remember that particular time when he took him for a ride. I said, "I just really don't remember that night--that much of it."
Now, I'll tell you how I think I recognized the man--this was after they had him on television and they showed him on television which was Monday or" Tuesday or something like that--it was a few days after.

 From an FBI report of an interview of Eugene Wilson, fellow salesman to Bogard, dated 9/9/64 (from the Mary Ferrell site):

"WILSON is now of the opinion that this event occurred sometime during the morning, before noon, on a Saturday, sometime during the first part of November, 1963, but cannot be more specific as to the date of the month, day of the week, or hour of the day. After this customer left, BOGARD mentioned to WILSON that he had used the red demonstrator car, that WILSON had been using, and the car did not have much gasoline in it when he let the customer drive it. BOGARD also said that the customer drove like a madman, driving much too fast, as it had been raining and the pavement was slick. BOGARD seemed unhappy with the way this customer drove, commenting that he drove 'like he was crazy'."

Sales manager Pizzo in his WC testimony said the normal procedure in that dealership in test drives was for the salesman to drive the car, with the prospective purchaser in the passenger seat, while the salesman demonstrated the car's features. Then, the salesman would turn the car over to the customer to drive back to the dealership. 

The Warren Commission claimed that there was such an inconsistency between Oswald driving like a madman at the dealership, and Ruth Paine's negative descriptions of Oswald's ability to navigate turns or parallel park when driving, that all of the very extremely compelling and credible testimony from the persons at the Downtown Lincoln Mercury concerning Oswald's presence here just could not be possible, as referring to Oswald. That, and a timeline objection. But neither objection is substantial. I think it is now reasonably shown that Oswald's driving behavior is not dissimilar between Ruth Paine's testimony and the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership. On the other matter, the alleged conflict between Ruth Paine's testimony that Oswald on Saturday, Nov. 9, could not have visited the Lincoln Mercury dealership, salesman Eugene Wilson, as reported in a Dallas newspaper article, corrects the date of Oswald's visit to the Lincoln Mercury dealership to Saturday, Nov. 2, when there is not a conflict with Oswald's whereabouts (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/W Disk/Wilson Eugene/Item 01.pdf). The Lincoln Mercury dealership salesmen provide multiple corroborated testimony as to Oswald's presence at the dealership, use of the name "Oswald", and the FBI reported that Bogard had been polygraph examined and was judged truthful. There is no reason to suppose an "Oswald impersonator" in this Lincoln Mercury dealership Oswald visit as opposed to, simply and trivially, Oswald.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

6 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

<disregard, duplicate post by mistake>

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

56 minutes ago, Dan Troyer said:

Denny, very nice write up. 

Makes you also wonder who the 14-year-old boy was?

Mr. JENNER. Was there ever an occasion when you saw him driving up that he had the 14-year-old boy-with him?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; the night he got the haircut.

The "14-year-old boy" would be 19-year old Buell Wesley Frazier. Shasteen simply got the age wrong. The only explanation that makes sense. I am sure Shasteen the barber was mistaken on seeing Oswald drive, probably some confusion from seeing Oswald and the "14-year-old boy" arrive together from a car driven by Frazier, such as Frazier and Oswald arriving in Irving after work ca. 6 pm on a Friday evening, and that is when Frazier accomodates Oswald in Oswald getting a haircut on the way home. Oswald had to get his hair cut somewhere. Another time Shasteen remembered an Oswald haircult was very early on a Saturday morning, again consistent with Oswald as early riser taking a walk from the Paine house when he was there on a weekend. Shasteen's barbership was about 1/2 mile from the Paine house (I checked on a map) and therefore would have been an easy early morning walk. Again, the most economical interpretation of the Shasteen testimony is no Oswald impersonator (nor in this case a mistaken identity) but simply and trivially, Oswald.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Greg Doudna