Interesting clippings

[Richard Booth]

3 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

I definitely walked away feeling like Oswald tried to murder him and he was lucky to be alive.

Why would Oswald attempt to shoot a police officer in the theatre?

 

He wouldn't and he didn't. The best evidence for this being a fabricated story designed to make Oswald look murderous is the fact that he was never charged with attempted murder, and no police ever questioned Oswald about trying to murder someone in the theater (at least, there is no evidence of a discussion like this anywhere in the documentation)

Had Oswald actually tried to murder McDonald you would expect two things:

1) an attempted murder charge added to his charges, so you have him charged not just with the murder of Tippit and JFK but also attempted murder of McDonald

2) we could expect there to be some extant notes or documentation that shows Curry or Fritz or someone at the police questioning Oswald about "why did you try to kill Officer McDonald?" 

I think it's a story that McDonald got good at telling over the years and kept on telling it. 

[Richard Booth]

4 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

Anyone have any information on Molina and what he may have done in 1955 to end up on a subversive list? Was it simply his membership in the G.I. Forum and FBI investigations related to that organization?

 

He was a member of a largely pro-Hispanic veteran's group. You have to remember that in Dallas in 1963 merely being a leftist meant you were a "subversive." Being the member of a group that advocates for Hispanic people was surely viewed as "suspicious" by the Dallas cops--because they were racist idiots, largely--but Molina wasn't in any way dangerous or a threat.

Put it this way: had the Secret Service known that a credit union employee at TSBD was the member of a veteran's group that had a large Hispanic population among it's members, they would not have viewed that person as a threat no matter if some Dallas cop decides that makes him "subversive"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11821#relPageId=5&tab=page

Here is one reason he would be labeled a subversive in 1955:

"On November 10, 1954, JOE MOLINA was on a committee which contacted Dallas County Clerk BILL SHAW concerning alleged discrimination against Mexican-Americans on Dallas County Grand Juries." (WILLIAM J. LOWERY, Jr., 11/15/54)

Talking to the white power structure in Dallas about discrimination... in 1955... is surely going to get you labeled something: Subversive, Communist, Uppity, you name it.

This FBI document shows where Curry is coming from when he called Molina a subversive:

"JESSE E. CURRY, Chief of Police, Dallas, Texas, on November 23, 1963, following interview by SA James S. Weir with JOE R. MOLINA that day, advised SA WEIR that MOLINA had caused the Dallas Police Department considerable trouble in the past by demanding such things as listing Mexicans as white persons rather than as Mexicans, and generally protesting alleged discrimination against Mexicans."

Edited September 16, 2020 by Richard Booth

[Mark Stevens]

17 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

He was a member of a largely pro-Hispanic veteran's group. You have to remember that in Dallas in 1963 merely being a leftist meant you were a "subversive." Being the member of a group that advocates for Hispanic people was surely viewed as "suspicious" by the Dallas cops--because they were racist idiots, largely--but Molina wasn't in any way dangerous or a threat.

Put it this way: had the Secret Service known that a credit union employee at TSBD was the member of a veteran's group that had a large Hispanic population among it's members, they would not have viewed that person as a threat no matter if some Dallas cop decides that makes him "subversive"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11821#relPageId=5&tab=page

Here is one reason he would be labeled a subversive in 1955:

"On November 10, 1954, JOE MOLINA was on a committee which contacted Dallas County Clerk BILL SHAW concerning alleged discrimination against Mexican-Americans on Dallas County Grand Juries." (WILLIAM J. LOWERY, Jr., 11/15/54)

Talking to the white power structure in Dallas about discrimination... in 1955... is surely going to get you labeled something: Subversive, Communist, Uppity, you name it.

Thanks Richard,

I was looking for something from 1955 and I haven't seen this yet. I'm aware (at least to some degree) of his membership in the G.I. Forum, some other discrimination issues and complaints, suspected Communist influence/penetration, and related FBI investigations into the G.I. Forum. I was wondering though if there was something more to add and wasn't considering the "files" were likely DPD files and not part of whatever "subversive files" the FBI was collecting at that time.

[Richard Booth]

Just now, Mark Stevens said:

Thanks Richard,

I was looking for something from 1955 and I haven't seen this yet. I'm aware (at least to some degree) of his membership in the G.I. Forum, some other discrimination issues and complaints, suspected Communist influence/penetration, and related FBI investigations into the G.I. Forum. I was wondering though if there was something more to add and wasn't considering the "files" were likely DPD files and not part of whatever "subversive files" the FBI was collecting at that time.

Yeah, the 1955 date comes from the GI Forum activities he participated in, in 1954.

The FBI would be interested in the communists who were members of the GI Forum, and that's evident in the documents on this. But these same documents also indicate that Molina was opposed to the CP and the Communists in the group. 

The FBI would probably realize that Molina was merely a civil rights activist while to Jesse Curry he was a subversive who caused the Dallas Police "a lot of trouble"

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

However, you shoot and kill one of their own and now all of a sudden the cops want to nail this suspect to the wall.

So there are a few reasons for the Tippit murder, all of them tied to framing the suspect and putting Dallas Police in the frame of mind you want them in.

I don't mind speculation.  Half the fun of some comments is speculation.  I clearly label mine.  I don't hold it against anyone for speculating.  But, we do read a lot of speculation passed off as more substantial material.  

The above quote, although plausible, is simply speculation.  You can't prove that so it is speculation.

[Tony Krome]

I like Bill Simpich's conclusion in State Secret: Sawyer's witness was part of the conspiracy, he was a nondescript white man whose job was to go tell the police Oswald's description to get it on the radio, and that this description probably came from the files on Oswald.

 

Then you have to deal with you're planted witness attending the Sheriff's Office under escort;

 

Mr. BELIN. Inspector, do you remember anything else about this person who you say gave you the primary description? 
Mr. SAWYER. No, I do not, except that I did send him with an escort to the Sheriff's Office to give fuller or more complete detail. 

[Richard Booth]

10 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I don't mind speculation.  Half the fun of some comments is speculation.  I clearly label mine.  I don't hold it against anyone for speculating.  But, we do read a lot of speculation passed off as more substantial material.  

The above quote, although plausible, is simply speculation.  You can't prove that so it is speculation.

[Richard Booth]

3 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

I like Bill Simpich's conclusion in State Secret: Sawyer's witness was part of the conspiracy, he was a nondescript white man whose job was to go tell the police Oswald's description to get it on the radio, and that this description probably came from the files on Oswald.

 

Then you have to deal with you're planted witness attending the Sheriff's Office under escort;

 

Mr. BELIN. Inspector, do you remember anything else about this person who you say gave you the primary description? 
Mr. SAWYER. No, I do not, except that I did send him with an escort to the Sheriff's Office to give fuller or more complete detail. 

Isn't it interesting that this is a witness no one can name, or provide any identifying details for, but at the same time we're to believe Sawyer sent this man with an escort to the Sheriff's Office "to give fuller or more complete detail." You would think this would have produced a detailed written account or record. 

[Tony Krome]

Isn't it interesting that this is a witness no one can name, or provide any identifying details for, but at the same time we're to believe Sawyer sent this man with an escort to the Sheriff's Office "to give fuller or more complete detail." You would think this would have produced a detailed written account or record. 

I'm suggesting that the witness was indeed escorted to the Sheriff's Office and an affidavit was written up. But if that witness saw a man "carrying" a rifle outside the building, that affidavit would not work with a rifle having been discovered on the 6th floor.

In other words, the person that Baker and the above witness saw, may well have been the 6th floor shooter leaving the building. If correct, the shooter was around 30 years of age, 165 pounds, and 5'9" to 5'10" tall.

In addition, I do not have the TSBD shooter aiming his weapon into the limo, he was a diversion. I also have Baker entering the TSBD far too quickly for the likes of the perps.

 

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Isn't it interesting that this is a witness no one can name, or provide any identifying details for, but at the same time we're to believe Sawyer sent this man with an escort to the Sheriff's Office "to give fuller or more complete detail." You would think this would have produced a detailed written account or record. 

I'm suggesting that the witness was indeed escorted to the Sheriff's Office and an affidavit was written up. But if that witness saw a man "carrying" a rifle outside the building, that affidavit would not work with a rifle having been discovered on the 6th floor.

In other words, the person that Baker and the above witness saw, may well have been the 6th floor shooter leaving the building. If correct, the shooter was around 30 years of age, 165 pounds, and 5'9" to 5'10" tall.

In addition, I do not have the TSBD shooter aiming his weapon into the limo, he was a diversion. I also have Baker entering the TSBD far too quickly for the likes of the perps.

 

If Baker entered too quickly for the perps, was he intercepted, maybe directed by Truly?  Yes on the diversion part from the TSBD, most definitely. 

[Richard Booth]

2 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Isn't it interesting that this is a witness no one can name, or provide any identifying details for, but at the same time we're to believe Sawyer sent this man with an escort to the Sheriff's Office "to give fuller or more complete detail." You would think this would have produced a detailed written account or record. 

I'm suggesting that the witness was indeed escorted to the Sheriff's Office and an affidavit was written up. But if that witness saw a man "carrying" a rifle outside the building, that affidavit would not work with a rifle having been discovered on the 6th floor.

In other words, the person that Baker and the above witness saw, may well have been the 6th floor shooter leaving the building. If correct, the shooter was around 30 years of age, 165 pounds, and 5'9" to 5'10" tall.

In addition, I do not have the TSBD shooter aiming his weapon into the limo, he was a diversion. I also have Baker entering the TSBD far too quickly for the likes of the perps.

 

I'd love to know the truth of the matter. Right now it's hard to know whether or not that actually happened, whether or not Sawyer was honest, whether or not if there was a legitimate witness, what they actually saw. There are just so many things about this whole thing that are 'variables' that are unknown. Many variables and few constants.

One of the few things I am certain of is that the head shot came from the front right, based entirely on what appears in the Zapruder film. Newton's third law of motion pretty much makes that abundantly clear (to me). I'm sure there are people who disagree with that, but I know what I see on that film.

[Tony Krome]

Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to form any opinion as to the age of that man? 
Mr. ROWLAND - This is again just my estimation. He was--I think I remember telling my wife that he appeared in his early thirties.

The count is now 3 witnesses for a suspicious man about 30

Baker - 30

Rowland - 30+

Sawyer's witness -30

 

 

[David Andrews]

18 hours ago, John Butler said:

I don't mind speculation.  Half the fun of some comments is speculation.  I clearly label mine.  I don't hold it against anyone for speculating.  But, we do read a lot of speculation passed off as more substantial material.  

The above quote, although plausible, is simply speculation.  You can't prove that so it is speculation.

I believe Detective Jim Leavelle made remarks to an interviewer (possibly Vince Palamara) that the Tippit murder galvanized the DPD to find the killer, to a degree greater than their response to the assassination.

Of course, whether the Tippit killing was provocation to frame Oswald will always be speculation.  The circumstances do point that way, and Oswald was charged with JFK's death hours after he was charged with Tippit's, on insubstantial evidence.

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

I believe Detective Jim Leavelle made remarks to an interviewer (possibly Vince Palamara) that the Tippit murder galvanized the DPD to find the killer,

to a degree greater than their response to the assassination.

Joseph McBride knows of this Leavelle comment.

He mentions Leavelle comparing JFK's killing with that of a ni##er killing.

That Leavelle wasn't anymore concerned about JFK's murder than a killing of ...well you get the idea.

 

 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Richard:

I just wanted to say that your posts are interesting.

But, the contribution of the various clippings is significant, and may tell us much about important primary details.

As time and inclination allow, please continue sharing clippings.  They are valuable and appreciated.