Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Oswald family at the Furniture Mart, a rifle scope installation in November 1963, and why it matters: a sale of the rifle before the assassination


Greg Doudna
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

I’m applying deductive reasoning. Gus Rose’s testimony doesn’t really have corroboration, yet neatly establishes “Oswald’s rifle” as fact. The officers at the Paine house left for Irving before Oswald was tied to the JFK slaying, so a telephone call to Fritz was necessary to even know to ask such a question - if it even happened that way. Rose’s testimony checks the necessary boxes for sure.

If the blanket in the garage had the “distinct impression” of a rifle, which seems to imply it had held the object for some period of time, how does it move with Ruth Paine and be placed in the garage with Oswald’s seabag without comment from Ruth or Michael? Michael Paine’s testimony on the matter to the Warren Commission goes on for seven strained pages (WCH IX, pp. 437-443) in which he claims to have pondered intellectually what the blanket could have contained, including a folding shovel or camping equipment, yet several Dallas police officers on Nov 22 note the “distinct impression” of a rifle. By 1993, Michael Paine started claiming that Oswald had showed him a backyard photo in the Spring of 1963 - yet seven months later could not identify or suspect the “distinct impression” of a rifle in a wrapped blanket. Ruth Paine claimed she would never allow a firearm in her home because of the children, but does not overtly react when the supposed presence of such, associated with a house guest no less, is made by police officers several hours after the President had been shot near a building where the guest worked. If Oswald removed the rifle, why would he leave the blanket with the “distinct impression” still intact, or even the string ties still in place on either end?

Jeff, could you convert some of these rhetorical questions into declarative sentences? For example, in your interpretation, do you conclude the blanket in the garage had a "distinct impression of a rifle", or did not? Do you conclude there was a blanket in the garage, or not?

On Michael Paine, are you regarding his testimony to have seen the blanket but not to have realized there was a rifle in a blanket, as evidence there was a blanket but no rifle in that blanket? 

My take on that is Michael Paine was accurate on the part about the blanket being there, but there is a question in my mind whether he was truthful in having no idea that it might be a rifle in it, though the camping equipment assumption he says he thought is not impossible. I do not regard Michael Paine's testimony as evidence there was no rifle. It is believable to me that Michael Paine would not have opened the blanket and checked, out of respect for someone else's belongings and lack of interest. I think Ruth Paine was truthful that she was unaware of a rifle in her garage. What do you think and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks for your comments Paul. On the suggestion that it was really Marina but the man was a different man than Lee, yet who represented himself as Lee ("Oswald") in the Irving Sports Shop and had sufficient physical description similarity that Mrs. Whitworth could mistakenly identify him as Lee . . . how would that work? Would Lee know about this other man taking his wife and children on expeditions to local Irving business locations? When would it have happened? It could not be Nov 11 because she was with Lee all that day. It is not easy to see how it could be on weekends or weekdays otherwise because Ruth Paine knew her whereabouts and said Marina never went off on her own or with someone else.  

A prior question is what problem is this trying to solve? That is, what is the difficulty with the man with Marina appearing to be her husband and claiming the baby girl held by Marina was his own new baby girl, simply being Lee? What is the reason calling for invoking a stand-in lookalike, of whom neither Marina nor Ruth Paine ever said a word, when the genuine article is already there and requires not such extensive imagination? 

You note the anonymous phone calls on Sunday Nov 24 could be intended to implicate Lee, from sinister origins--not simply a leak from someone Dial or his wife told--I agree that is possible. It is included in the possibility I named that the source of the Sports Shop scope installation could have been Oswald himself. The buyer of his rifle per my argument was connected to the ones who did the assassination (reason for that conclusion: the rifle turned up connected to the assassination the next day). My reconstruction proposes that Lee sold the rifle Nov 20 or 21, and that it was people connected to the buyer, not Lee, who took the rifle inside the TSBD to the sixth floor connecting Lee to the assassination the next day. I do not think Lee shot the rifle or that he knew the rifle was in the building. Therefore those anonymous phone calls on Sun Nov 24 could come from persons intending to implicate Oswald, as part of this larger pattern, making opportunistic use of information learned from Oswald at the time of the rifle sale. Although I suggested the accidental leak by a wife's family member or something of that nature matched in terms of details and timing and plausibility Dial's telling his wife of his discovery of the job ticket, and that the anonymity of the calls was self-protective because promises of confidentiality were being violated, the more sinister background to the anonymous phone calls is also possible. I do not know how to exclude one or the other on the basis of present information.

A point of detail: none of the anonymous call reports on Nov 24 indicated the callers knew the name of Dial Ryder.

Of possible interest in light of the "sinister" explanation of those phone calls is that officer Turner of the DPD who received the original anonymous tip from the journalist, said the tip was that Lee had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop on Nov 21, the day before the assassination--the wrong date for Oswald at the Irving Sports Shop, but if it was the date Oswald sold the rifle and disclosed the information to the buyer (Lee telling the buyer about the professional work done on the rifle at the Irving Sports Shop), could that be related to the date confusion?

"Detective Fay M. Turner, Homicide and Robbery Division, Dallas Police Department, advised he recalls that on the afternoon of Sunday, November 24, 1963, following the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, he was on duty in the offices of Captain J. Will Fritz and he received a telephone call from one Ray John, who he knows to be a member of the news staff for Channel 8, WFAA-TV, Dallas. To the best of his recollection, this call was received in his office at approximately 3:45 to 5:00 p.m.

"He advised John told him that he, John, had just received a call at the Channel 8 offices from an anonymous caller to the effect that "Oswald" had taken a rifle to a gun shop located in the 200 block on Irving Boulevard on November 21, 1963, to have the rifle 'sighted-in.' Turner stated he checked the city directories in his office and determined that the Irving Sports Shop was located at 221 E. Irving Boulevard in Irving, Texas, and this appeared to be the only shop of its type within several blocks of that address. Turner stated he contacted the Irving Sports Shop and talked to a Mr. Greener, manager of that establishment, regarding this information as received from the anonymous caller and that Greener told him he and his employee, Ryder had discussed [this discussion would refer to Friday Nov 22 afternoon at the shop--gd] the matter of the assassination in connection with repair work they may have done in their shop but that neither could remember having done any work for Lee Harvey Oswald and in particular could not recall having performed any work on a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle which rifle was believed at that time to be the assassination weapon." (FBI, 5/15/64, https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58994#relPageId=67)

So that is my basic reaction to the real Marina/imposter Lee suggestion. I am not aware of positive evidence or indication of another man in Marina's life in Oct-Nov 1963 or how that could logistically be possible given that she had no money or transportation and her whereabouts were known practically every minute by Ruth Paine except for that one exception on Nov 11 when Ruth was gone and she was with Lee that day. There seems to be no room that I can see logistically for another man in her life in this period that would be unknown to Ruth Paine, to Lee, and to history given the level of scrutiny and investigation Marina's movements received in that time frame. If the man was another man why would the car be blue and white the same as Ruth's car, instead of the other man's car not matching the colors of Ruth's car. And although you have obviously thought about this for some time and must have reasons for proposing it, I do not at this stage understand what reasons call for the proposal in the first place. 

Please further defend yours if you feel I am missing some points, and thanks again for your comments. 

Greg, 

Perhaps the most intriguing bit of evidence (wholly ignored) is Marguerite Oswald's interview with Joachim Joesten in which she claimed that "Oswald" never lived on Neely Street (which he too claimed to Captain Fritz). Instead, said Marguerite, Marina "lived there with another man." 

I don't know why "Oswald" denied ever living at Neely, if he actually did live there, yet he vehemently denied it! Read Captain Fritz's summary. (The so-called evidence "Oswald" ever lived on Neely is paper thin.)

I don't know why Marguerite claimed that Marina lived on Neely with another man, but that is what she told Joesten!

By all accounts, the marriage between Marina and "Oswald" was one punctuated by quarrels and separations. Is it so hard to consider that there was another man on the periphery of Marina's life?

(I realize that is speculative, but so is your thesis that "Oswald" sold the infamous Mannlicher-Carcano on November 21 to someone who then set him up with it. Possible, but we need much more evidence.)

Thanks for clarifying the detail that no record of the two anonymous phone calls mentioned the name "Dial Ryder." My mistake.

However, my basic point still stands: the point of these anonymous calls was to put a rifle physically into "Oswald's" hands.

Consider:

At that moment, late Sunday afternoon or early evening, the best the FBI had were some (very sketchy) order documents from Kleins. No one at the post office could put any rifle into the hands of the accused, whether he used "Oswald" or "Hidell" or anything else. 

No one ever saw "Oswald" shoot anything with this or any other rifle. (Marina's obvious whoppers about shooting leaves in parks notwithstanding.)

George DeMohrenschildt did NOT claim personally to have seen a rifle in the "Oswald" closet in the spring of 1963. Instead he related that his wife had seen (what, exactly?)

No one at the TSBD saw "Oswald" with any rifle, ever.

No one at any local gun range saw our "Oswald" practice with a rifle, ever. At least, so claimed both the FBI and the Warren Commission.

No one at 1026 N. Beckley saw "Oswald" with a rifle.

Neither Ruth nor Michael Paine ever claimed to know that "Oswald" stored a rifle in the Paine garage, let alone see him with one. (No one has ever credibly explained how in the world the rifle, even one wrapped in a blanket supposedly,  could have been transported from New Orleans to Irving in Ruth's station wagon without her having any idea it was there. )

No one in New Orleans ever claimed to see "Oswald" ever do anything with a rifle.

Everyone, even you, now recognizes that the money order used to pay for the rifle from Klein's is a fraud. (Your speculation about a possible "benign" reason involving John B. Hurt and national security is both fascinating and well-thought out, but ultimately there simply is no evidence.)

 

My point in reciting all of the above, Greg, is to emphasize that on late Sunday afternoon, the conspirators were desperate to place the rifle physically in "Oswald's" hands. 

Before the Furniture Mart/Irving Sports Shop witnesses were identified by law enforcement, no one, and I mean no one, could actually put any rifle in "Oswald's" hands. 

The conspirators knew this, and that's why the two anonymous calls were placed to first the DPD, and then the FBI. Both calls had the same misinformation ("Oswald" had a rifle sighted in on November 21"), but both were accurate about the Irving Sports Shop.

Anyway, the bottom line for me is this: if our "Oswald" took this rifle (or any rifle) to the Irving Sports Shop sometime in early November, the Warren Commission and the FBI would have trumpeted that news to the high heavens. 

Instead they buried it.

They knew our man was never there, and they were afraid closer examination and publicity would reveal an impersonation, and therefore, conspiracy.

And that was something neither the Warren Commission nor the FBI would ever admit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Lee Oswald did not own either of the weapons entered into evidence in the

Kennedy and Tippit murders.

What would you say was the single most important reason to you that persuaded you Lee never owned the rifle (C399), if you are willing to say, Joseph?

(This is not a question of holes in chain of custody and reasonable doubt arguments which given strong and effective legal counsel could well have been fought through in court at least to hung jury if not acquittal if it had come to trial. Rather, what tipped/tips it for you to certainty that he never owned the rifle?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

I don't know why Marguerite claimed that Marina lived on Neely with another man, but that is what she told Joesten!

 

Paul,

If I were to look at anyone, I would look at Alexander Kleilerer.

He was visiting Marina when she was living at Elana Hall's house in October, 1962. The Oswald's moved to Elsbeth St. in early November, 1962, and then allegedly on to Neely in March, 1963.

I haven't really fleshed this out, but,...

Kleinlerer was in the plastics business. So was Robert Webster.

The Soviets were very interested in the polymers needed for the high heat generated in their space reentry vehicles.

 

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hall_e.htm

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you know Mr. Alexander Kleinlerer?
Mrs. HALL - Yes. He was coming to my house while John and I were divorced. That was all.
Mr. LIEBELER - What?
Mrs. HALL - I said, that was all. He was coming, you know.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did Mr. Kleinlerer tell you that during the time that you were in the hospital and subsequently when you were in New York, that he came to the house to see how Marina was and how she was getting along?
Mrs. HALL - Yes. He didn't tell me, but Mrs. Clark told me, because when I came back from New York, John was in Fort Worth already, and we got married after 2 days and I didn't see him any more. I didn't see this Kleinlerer any more.
Mr. LIEBELER - Have you ever seen him since then?
Mrs. HALL - No.
Mr. LIEBELER - You had no discussions yourself with Kleinlerer about what Marina was doing or who was at the house while you were gone?
Mrs. HALL - No. Mrs. Clark told me that sometime he would take Marina to grocery store, and sometimes she would take her.

Mrs. HALL - I don't know. Maybe Mrs. Clark or Mr. Kleinlerer paid for her.
Mr. LIEBELER - But you yourself did not pay for any of her groceries?
Mrs. HALL - No; I did not.

See: Commission Document 1066 - FBI Gemberling Report of 28 May 1964 re: Oswald - Russia/Cuba

page 554

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11462#relPageId=566&tab=page

Kleinlerer was employed by Lomo Industries of Fort Worth, TX.

Max Clark and his wife have been “fairly good friends with Dimytruk and Kleinlerer for the past six or eight months.”

 

Robert Howard in the Education Forum 2/1/2006

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/659-lee-harvey-oswald/?page=2

I have a very serious request concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's notebook. In it there is a listing for Lomo Industries, Inc. The Dallas Phone Directory as well as the Business Directory for the same year to my knowledge DO NOT have such a listing, however there is a Loma Industries, Inc with offices in Dallas and Ft. Worth. Can anyone enlighten me about this listing? Is it possible that Oswald's dyslexia, (he was dyslexic, right?) may have something to do with this? Any response is greatly appreciated.”

 

Jack White in the Education Forum 2/2/2006

LOMA PLASTICS (Loma Industries) was a local manufacturer of plastic goods, such as kitchenware, etc. They had a manufacturing plant in Fort Worth. I do not find them listed in the FW yellow pages.

Jack

 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kleinler.htm

AFFIDAVIT

Alexander Kleinlerer of 3542 Kent Street, Fort Worth, Texas, being duly sworn, says:

I am and have for several years been a foreign representative of Loma Industries, a plastics production company, located at 3000 West Pafford Street, Fort Worth, Texas.”

 

Posted by James Richards 2/2/2006

Robert,

I'm going by memory here which is a dangerous ploy but I seem to remember that Loma Industries had a foreign representative named Alexander Kleinlerer who was friends with George De Mohrenschildt. I also seem to recall that this clique which included George Bouhe got together to provide clothes and the like for the Oswald family.

Loma Industries burned down in 1965 I think it was.

James

 

Lydia Dimytruk is Kleinlerer's girlfriend.

For more information on Lydia Dimytruk, see: (she is a piece of work!)

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20More%20Referrals/105-82555%20More%20Referrals%203-04.pdf

pp. 13-33, Suspected of being a Russian spy. Formerly married to Vasily Kostenko, also suspected of being a Russian spy.

She marries Pavel Dimytruk in 1956. Emigrates to the U.S. In 1959 and divorces him in 1960.

 

Sound familiar?

Steve Thomas

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

George DeMohrenschildt did NOT claim personally to have seen a rifle in the "Oswald" closet in the spring of 1963. Instead he related that his wife had seen (what, exactly?)

Below is what George DeMohrenschildt wrote in his manuscript, Lee Harvey Oswald as I Knew Him, according to the critical edition from DeMohrenschildt's papers published by Michael Rinella (2014, University Press of Kansas). Note this manuscript of DeMohrenschildt was prepared late in DeMohrenschildt's life when he is attempting to defend and to a great extent rehabilitate Oswald's name and reputation. In Rinella's introduction the preparation of this manuscript by DeMohrenschildt is dated 1969-1976 (DeMorhenschildt died in 1976). DeMohrenschildt explicitly heavily gives reasons in support of Oswald's innocence of the JFK assassination in this manuscript, and why the narrative that Oswald killed JFK, a president Oswald admired, made no sense and was highly doubtful to DeMohrenschildt based on everything he knew of Oswald personally. DeMohrenschidt's manuscript of Oswald contains mistakes and some minor confusions of memory (Rinella's detailed footnotes are invaluable here), and is clearly an advocacy on Oswald's behalf as orientation, but not obvious wholesale outright fabrications. Whether he embellished in the interests of storytelling, unknown, but the basic facts told appear to hang together coherently.

"Easter of 1963. On April 13, if I remember correctly, we were at last nearly ready to leave [for Haiti]. All our light belongings were packed and our furniture was ready to be sent to the warehouse. During the commotion before our departure we saw little of the Oswalds, and we knew that they were practically living like hermits. Nobody visited or invited them to visit, except maybe the Paines. Jeanne and I sat exhausted that evening after playing tennis. 'This is a big holiday,' she said. 'And the Oswalds are alone. Even Marina is abandoned by the conservative refugees as she has gone back to her "Marxist" husband.'

"I agreed with Jeanne and commiserated with Marina. Being left alone was a penalty for her because she preferred Lee, notwithstanding all the fights and the beatings.

"Jeanne had previously bought a huge toy rabbit, practically June's size, a pink fluffy thing for the poor child. The Oswalds' new apartment was on Neely Street, a few blocks away from their old place on Elsbeth Street. This was our first visit to their new abode which was infinitely better than the previous one. They had the second floor here, all to themselves. Huge trees shaded the structure and in the back yard the climbing roses hung up on the trellises. The house itself had a white frame of the usual type for a Southern structure.

"We rang the bell. The lights were off as it was obviously late for our sedentary friends. Although it was about 10 p.m. we had to keep ringing a long time.

"'Who is there?' asked Lee's familar voice.

"'Jeanne and George, open up, we have something for June,' I answered cheerfully. Lee came down, opened the front door and then led us up a dark staircase.

"Now Marina was also up and the apartment lights came on. Everything was clean and spacious but almost devoid of furniture. 'Isn't this a nice place?' confided Marina in Russian. 'So much better than the old hole-in-the-walls.'

"We agreed and congratulated them on finding such a good place.

"She was cheerful and Lee was smiling also, which hadn't happened often recently. He was happy that they were left alone by the emigres and even by the rare Americans they knew. Lee's feelings for the emigres could be compared to those a pro-Castro Cuban might have towards all the refugees now crowding the streets of Miami.

"Lee appeared satisfied with his job and proud of being able to provide a better place for his family. This was their first time in quite a while that we did not see any conflict between him and his wife. Of course, what follows will prove that everything wasn't milk and honey for the Oswald family.

"Marina served soft drinks and began discussing some domestic affairs with Jeanne. Lee and I walked to the balcony and began to chat. He was very curious about my project in Haiti but up to now neither one of us was sure the work would materialize. Now it was a fait accompli. Lee envied my profession and the chance I would have to help an undeveloped country and the poor people living there. He knew Haiti from his readings and was aware it was the oldest, independent black republic in the world. He had learned that Haiti had helped the United States during the War of Independence, a fact not known to many Americans of his age and background. He also had heard about United States intervention in Haiti after World War I--actually at the end of the war--and of the long American occupation of that country. He even learned which part of the Espanola Island the Republic of Haiti occupied and her size.

"'You are very lucky going there, it will be an exciting experience,' he said. His opinion was valuable and encouraging to me because most of my friends and acquaintances had a very dim view of my whole project and thought it would be dangerous and a waste of time. It turned out to be one of the most useful and pleasant experiences of our lives. But most of these would-be advisors knew little about Haiti--and I mean well-educated, prominent people. To them it was an insane, tropical, and black locale with a rather ferocious dictatorship. Some had predicted the worst disasters if we lived there.

"Then we talked pleasantly of his job, of June who was growing nicely, and we also spoke of the unfortunate rise of ultra-conservativism in America, of the racist movement in the South. Lee considered this the most dangerous phenomenon for all peace-loving people. 'Economic discrimination is bad, but you can remedy it,' he said, 'but racial discrimination cannot be remedied because you cannot change the color of your skin.' Of course, he greatly admired Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and agreed with his program. He frequently talked of Dr. King with real reverence.

"In the meantime Marina was showing Jeanne her bedroom, kitchen, and the living-room. There she opened a large closet, next to the balcony, and began showing Jeanne her wardrobe, which was considerable. On the bottom of the closet was a rifle standing completely in the open.

"'Look! Look!' called Jeanne excitedly. 'There is a rifle there.'

"We came in and I looked curiously. Indeed there was a military rifle there of a type unknown to me, something mounted on top.

"'What is that thing dangling?' asked Jeanne.

"'A telescopic sight,' I answered.

"Jeanne had never seen a telescopic sight before and probably did not understand what it was. But I did: I had graduated from a military school.

"'Why do you have this rifle here,' Jeanne asked Lee.

"Marina answered instead. 'Lee bought it. Devil knows why. We need all the money we have for food and lodging and he buys this damn rifle.'

"'But what does he do with a military rifle,' Jeanne asked again.

""He likes shooting at the leaves.'

"'But when does he have time to shoot at the leaves, and where,' asked Jeanne curiously.

"'He shoots at the leaves in the park, whenever we go there.'

"This explanation did not make much sense to us, but liking target shooting ourselves we did not consider this a crazy occupation." (pp. 64-66)

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Jeff, could you convert some of these rhetorical questions into declarative sentences? For example, in your interpretation, do you conclude the blanket in the garage had a "distinct impression of a rifle", or did not? Do you conclude there was a blanket in the garage, or not?

On Michael Paine, are you regarding his testimony to have seen the blanket but not to have realized there was a rifle in a blanket, as evidence there was a blanket but no rifle in that blanket? 

My take on that is Michael Paine was accurate on the part about the blanket being there, but there is a question in my mind whether he was truthful in having no idea that it might be a rifle in it, though the camping equipment assumption he says he thought is not impossible. I do not regard Michael Paine's testimony as evidence there was no rifle. It is believable to me that Michael Paine would not have opened the blanket and checked, out of respect for someone else's belongings and lack of interest. I think Ruth Paine was truthful that she was unaware of a rifle in her garage. What do you think and why?

re: the suggestion of a rifle at the Paine’s house in irving - my opinion is that there is something fishy, as Steve said. I also agree with Joe - Oswald never owned the rifle or handgun.

My opinion is there was a blanket that was an Oswald family possession. It might be seen in a couple of photos from the Neely St house, laid out on the balcony beneath young June. It likely travelled to New Orleans and back again and ended up in the Paine’s garage - but it did not ever hide a rifle. My assumption is that either someone rearranged the rolled blanket to form something like a rifle shape, probably during the day of Nov 22, or else there was some suggestive verbal element at play on its discovery which led to a consensus among the officers present that its shape was “rifle-like”.

Michael Paine, in my opinion, lied in 1993 about being shown a backyard photo by Oswald, and did so to help bolster the official story. Similarly, in my opinion, his laboured testimony about camping equipment in the blanket was also a lie told for the same reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Below is what George DeMohrenschildt wrote in his manuscript, Lee Harvey Oswald as I Knew Him, according to the critical edition from DeMohrenschildt's papers published by Michael Rinella (2014, University Press of Kansas). Note this manuscript of DeMohrenschildt was prepared late in DeMohrenschildt's life when he is attempting to defend and to a great extent rehabilitate Oswald's name and reputation. In Rinella's introduction the preparation of this manuscript by DeMohrenschildt is dated 1969-1976 (DeMorhenschildt died in 1976). DeMohrenschildt explicitly heavily gives reasons in support of Oswald's innocence of the JFK assassination in this manuscript, and why the narrative that Oswald killed JFK, a president Oswald admired, made no sense and was highly doubtful to DeMohrenschildt based on everything he knew of Oswald personally. DeMohrenschidt's manuscript of Oswald contains mistakes and some minor confusions of memory (Rinella's detailed footnotes are invaluable here), and is clearly an advocacy on Oswald's behalf as orientation, but not obvious wholesale outright fabrications. Whether he embellished in the interests of storytelling, unknown, but the basic facts told appear to hang together coherently.

"Easter of 1963. On April 13, if I remember correctly, we were at last nearly ready to leave [for Haiti]. All our light belongings were packed and our furniture was ready to be sent to the warehouse. During the commotion before our departure we saw little of the Oswalds, and we knew that they were practically living like hermits. Nobody visited or invited them to visit, except maybe the Paines. Jeanne and I sat exhausted that evening after playing tennis. 'This is a big holiday,' she said. 'And the Oswalds are alone. Even Marina is abandoned by the conservative refugees as she has gone back to her "Marxist" husband.'

"I agreed with Jeanne and commiserated with Marina. Being left alone was a penalty for her because she preferred Lee, notwithstanding all the fights and the beatings.

"Jeanne had previously bought a huge toy rabbit, practically June's size, a pink fluffy thing for the poor child. The Oswalds' new apartment was on Neely Street, a few blocks away from their old place on Elsbeth Street. This was our first visit to their new abode which was infinitely better than the previous one. They had the second floor here, all to themselves. Huge trees shaded the structure and in the back yard the climbing roses hung up on the trellises. The house itself had a white frame of the usual type for a Southern structure.

"We rang the bell. The lights were off as it was obviously late for our sedentary friends. Although it was about 10 p.m. we had to keep ringing a long time.

"'Who is there?' asked Lee's familar voice.

"'Jeanne and George, open up, we have something for June,' I answered cheerfully. Lee came down, opened the front door and then led us up a dark staircase.

"Now Marina was also up and the apartment lights came on. Everything was clean and spacious but almost devoid of furniture. 'Isn't this a nice place?' confided Marina in Russian. 'So much better than the old hole-in-the-walls.'

"We agreed and congratulated them on finding such a good place.

"She was cheerful and Lee was smiling also, which hadn't happened often recently. He was happy that they were left alone by the emigres and even by the rare Americans they knew. Lee's feelings for the emigres could be compared to those a pro-Castro Cuban might have towards all the refugees now crowding the streets of Miami.

"Lee appeared satisfied with his job and proud of being able to provide a better place for his family. This was ther first time in quite a while that we did not see any conflict between him and his wife. Of course, what follows will prove that everything wasn't milk and honey for the Oswald family.

"Marina served soft drinks and began discussing some domestic affairs with Jeanne. Lee and I walked to the balcony and began to chat. He was very curious about my project in Haiti but up to now neither one of us was sure the work would materialize. Now it was a fait accompli. Lee envied my profession and the chance I would have to help an undeveloped country and the poor people living there. He knew Haiti from his readings and was aware it was the oldest, independent black republic in the world. He had learned that Haiti had helped the United States during the War of Independence, a fact not known to many Americans of his age and background. He also had heard about United States intervention in Haiti after World War I--actually at the end of the war--and of the long American occupation of that country. He even learned which part of the Espanola Island the Republic of Haiti occupied and her size.

"'You are very lucky going there, it will be an exciting experience,' he said. His opinion was valuable and encouraging to me because most of my friends and acquaintances had a very dim view of my whole project and thought it would be dangerous and a waste of time. It turned out to be one of the most useful and pleasant experiences of our lives. But most of these would-be advisors knew little about Haiti--and I mean well-educated, prominent people. To them it was an insane, tropical, and black locale with a rather ferocious dictatorship. Some had predicted the worst disasters if we lived there.

"Then we talked pleasantly of his job, of June who was growing nicely, and we also spoke of the unfortunate rise of ultra-conservativism in America, of the racist movement in the South. Lee considered this the most dangerous phenomenon for all peace-loving people. 'Economic discrimination is bad, but you can remedy it,' he said, 'but racial discrimination cannot be remedied because you cannot change the color of your skin.' Of course, he greatly admired Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and agreed with his program. He frequently talked of Dr. King with real reverence.

"In the meantime Marina was showing Jeanne her bedroom, kitchen, and the living-room. There she opened a large closet, next to the balcony, and began showing Jeanne her wardrobe, which was considerable. On the bottom of the closet was a rifle standing completely in the open.

"'Look! Look!' called Jeanne excitedly. 'There is a rifle there.'

"We came in and I looked curiously. Indeed there was a military rifle there of a type unknown to me, something mounted on top.

"'What is that thing dangling?' asked Jeanne.

"'A telescopic sight,' I answered.

"Jeanne had never seen a telescopic sight before and probably did not understand what it was. But I did: I had graduated from a military school.

"'Why do you have this rifle here,' Jeanne asked Lee.

"Marina answered instead. 'Lee bought it. Devil knows why. We need all the money we have for food and lodging and he buys this damn rifle.'

"'But what does he do with a military rifle,' Jeanne asked again.

""He likes shooting at the leaves.'

"'But when does he have time to shoot at the leaves, and where,' asked Jeanne curiously.

"'He shoots at the leaves in the park, whenever we go there.'

"This explanation did not make much sense to us, but liking target shooting ourselves we did not consider this a crazy occupation." (pp. 64-66)

Yes, I have read that curious manuscript before too, and like everyone else, I wonder why DeMohrenschildt did not testify about the rifle back in 1964, under oath. 

After all, the Warren Commission was looking for evidence that our "Oswald" had a rifle in the spring of 1963, and DeMohrenschildt (as you've correctly pointed out) was more than willing to paint a sinister picture of his "friend" posthumously when he, DeMohrenschildt, testified in 1964.

DeMohrenschildt was under heavy pressure to incriminate "Oswald" back in 1964, yet nothing like this appears in his testimony! 

Curious, indeed.

To what, exactly, he might have testified before the HSCA, or said to investigator Gaeton Fonzi, in the spring of 1977, is now unknowable, given that DeMohrenschildt took a shotgun blast to the head on March 29, 1977.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence that just a few days later Billy Lord, "Oswald's" cabin mate on the trip across the Atlantic in 1959, wrote a letter to President Carter, pleading for help.

Lord claimed that "George Bush, Jr."  (son of the previous CIA director, and future one-term president, George H. W. Bush) was one of two men harassing Lord for an interview as part of a secret project to "speak with" (pronounced "intimidate and coerce")  every single living soul who ever had any contact at any point with our "Oswald" ever in his life. 

Huh.

Just as Congress is gearing up for a reinvestigation, and just as this secret project is underway, DeMohenschildt is shot and then this manuscript appears. 

Greg, I am dubious about putting much emphasis on this. How much of it (if any) represents DeMohrenschldt's true feelings is of course, unknowable. 

Maybe it is 100% authentic.

Maybe it is 100% disinformation. (A classic "limited hangout.")

We'll never know either way. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Paul,

If I were to look at anyone, I would look at Alexander Kleilerer.

He was visiting Marina when she was living at Elana Hall's house in October, 1962. The Oswald's moved to Elsbeth St. in early November, 1962, and then allegedly on to Neely in March, 1963.

I haven't really fleshed this out, but,...

Kleinlerer was in the plastics business. So was Robert Webster.

The Soviets were very interested in the polymers needed for the high heat generated in their space reentry vehicles.

 

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hall_e.htm

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you know Mr. Alexander Kleinlerer?
Mrs. HALL - Yes. He was coming to my house while John and I were divorced. That was all.
Mr. LIEBELER - What?
Mrs. HALL - I said, that was all. He was coming, you know.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did Mr. Kleinlerer tell you that during the time that you were in the hospital and subsequently when you were in New York, that he came to the house to see how Marina was and how she was getting along?
Mrs. HALL - Yes. He didn't tell me, but Mrs. Clark told me, because when I came back from New York, John was in Fort Worth already, and we got married after 2 days and I didn't see him any more. I didn't see this Kleinlerer any more.
Mr. LIEBELER - Have you ever seen him since then?
Mrs. HALL - No.
Mr. LIEBELER - You had no discussions yourself with Kleinlerer about what Marina was doing or who was at the house while you were gone?
Mrs. HALL - No. Mrs. Clark told me that sometime he would take Marina to grocery store, and sometimes she would take her.

Mrs. HALL - I don't know. Maybe Mrs. Clark or Mr. Kleinlerer paid for her.
Mr. LIEBELER - But you yourself did not pay for any of her groceries?
Mrs. HALL - No; I did not.

See: Commission Document 1066 - FBI Gemberling Report of 28 May 1964 re: Oswald - Russia/Cuba

page 554

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11462#relPageId=566&tab=page

Kleinlerer was employed by Lomo Industries of Fort Worth, TX.

Max Clark and his wife have been “fairly good friends with Dimytruk and Kleinlerer for the past six or eight months.”

 

Robert Howard in the Education Forum 2/1/2006

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/659-lee-harvey-oswald/?page=2

I have a very serious request concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's notebook. In it there is a listing for Lomo Industries, Inc. The Dallas Phone Directory as well as the Business Directory for the same year to my knowledge DO NOT have such a listing, however there is a Loma Industries, Inc with offices in Dallas and Ft. Worth. Can anyone enlighten me about this listing? Is it possible that Oswald's dyslexia, (he was dyslexic, right?) may have something to do with this? Any response is greatly appreciated.”

 

Jack White in the Education Forum 2/2/2006

LOMA PLASTICS (Loma Industries) was a local manufacturer of plastic goods, such as kitchenware, etc. They had a manufacturing plant in Fort Worth. I do not find them listed in the FW yellow pages.

Jack

 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kleinler.htm

AFFIDAVIT

Alexander Kleinlerer of 3542 Kent Street, Fort Worth, Texas, being duly sworn, says:

I am and have for several years been a foreign representative of Loma Industries, a plastics production company, located at 3000 West Pafford Street, Fort Worth, Texas.”

 

Posted by James Richards 2/2/2006

Robert,

I'm going by memory here which is a dangerous ploy but I seem to remember that Loma Industries had a foreign representative named Alexander Kleinlerer who was friends with George De Mohrenschildt. I also seem to recall that this clique which included George Bouhe got together to provide clothes and the like for the Oswald family.

Loma Industries burned down in 1965 I think it was.

James

 

Lydia Dimytruk is Kleinlerer's girlfriend.

For more information on Lydia Dimytruk, see: (she is a piece of work!)

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20More%20Referrals/105-82555%20More%20Referrals%203-04.pdf

pp. 13-33, Suspected of being a Russian spy. Formerly married to Vasily Kostenko, also suspected of being a Russian spy.

She marries Pavel Dimytruk in 1956. Emigrates to the U.S. In 1959 and divorces him in 1960.

 

Sound familiar?

Steve Thomas

 

 

Hmm.

So this Alexander Kleinlerer had a divorced Russian-speaking girlfriend (one suspected of being a Soviet spy) and then, in the fall of 1962,  magically, befriends another young woman (again, suspected of being a Soviet spy) whose marriage was pretty shaky.

I'd bet that Kleinlerer had links to U.S. intelligence, just as our man "Oswald" had links to American intelligence. 

And Mrs. Hall knew that Kleinlerer used to "visit" Marina and take on her on errands when "Oswald" was not around.

And in the winter of 1962/63, while living at Elsbeth St. Apartments, neighbors could hear some pretty ferocious arguments between our "Oswald" and Marina. 

 One can only wonder about what they might have argued . . . 

Thanks, Steve. This is provocative, indeed!

Old Marguerite Oswald just might have told Joachim Joesten the truth - for a few weeks in the spring of 1963 on Neely Street, Marina was living with another man, not our "Oswald"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Michael Paine, in my opinion, lied in 1993 about being shown a backyard photo by Oswald, and did so to help bolster the official story.

Jeff,

I have not read Michael Paine's WC testimony or any interviews he had with the FBI, but I have read that he said he was shown a backyard photograph on Friday night. Those photographs weren't "discovered" until Saturday afternoon.

What do you think of that?

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Jeff,

I have not read Michael Paine's WC testimony or any interviews he had with the FBI, but I have read that he said he was shown a backyard photograph on Friday night. Those photographs weren't "discovered" until Saturday afternoon.

What do you think of that?

Steve Thomas

I think it is true - Michael Paine was shown a backyard photo on Friday evening. He identified the Neely Street house from the photo, and one can then trace the interest in that address through Fritz the following day. I speculate that the photo in possession on Friday night was the version later labelled 133-C, not generally known until the 1970s, and that 133-C was hidden from the official record for so long because the means by which it came into possession of the DPD would harm the official story. I believe someone handed that photo to the DPD early Friday evening, and either that person’s identity or how they initially came into possession of the photo would open a can of worms best left sealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

What would you say was the single most important reason to you that persuaded you Lee never owned the rifle (C399), if you are willing to say, Joseph?

(This is not a question of holes in chain of custody and reasonable doubt arguments which given strong and effective legal counsel could well have been fought through in court at least to hung jury if not acquittal if it had come to trial. Rather, what tipped/tips it for you to certainty that he never owned the rifle?)

That is a good question, Greg. 

We agree that the legal case against rifle ownership could never be proven in court, what with the chain-of-custody issues, the forged  money order, the dubious order forms, the phony fingerprint evidence, etc.

But you're asking something different: how do we know he didn't own a rifle?

Well, to me, it comes down to many small things, each pointing against ownership.

For starters, "Oswald" denied ownership.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/21/us/interrogator-s-notes-say-oswald-denied-assassination-role.html

On its face, that may not seem like much, but "Oswald" readily admitted to a number of things later used to incriminate him. He readily admitted to working at the TSBD, and then leaving the TSBD shortly within minutes after the motorcade passed.

He admitted to being a "Marxist-Leninist". He admitted to punching a policeman. And so on.

So I think his denial of ownership ought to carry at least some weight. After all, if he really did own that MC rifle, his defense would not be that he didn't (or never) owned it, instead he would have claimed that he did not bring it to work that day. 

In fact, that is exactly what you and I believe - he didn't bring it to work. But that's not what he said at all.

Secondly, I don't believe anyone ever had a conversation with him after he got out of the Marines in which "Oswald" showed much (or any) interest in firearms of any type. He was NOT a "gun nut", Marina's perjury and tortuous statements aside. 

Other that the contested posthumous account from DeMohrenschildt which you and I have discussed at length, no one can put any firearm in his hands after his return from Russia. 

"Oswald" didn't spend any time or effort thinking about or talking about firearms with any known witness. 

Thirdly, "Oswald" didn't practice with or admire or hold or treasure any firearm, even assuming (heroically) that DeMohrenschildt belated account is true. Even according to that story, "Oswald's" rifle was carelessly on edge in a closet, not on a gun rack. Our man never went to a range. Our man wasn't any good during the only known firearms training he ever received in the USMC. If someone isn't any good at something, it is extremely unlikely they'll develop an interest in it later. Some gun enthusiast!

Fourthly, our man liked to talk: politics, culture, books, opera, etc. He was not some reticent wallflower, unwilling to make his opinions known about things important to him. He would both write and speak his mind, to the point of being obnoxious.

But about firearms?

He had nothing to say, ever. 

Greg, I realize no one of these reasons is definitive, in and of itself. But together, they paint a picture of a man who didn't own firearms. If our "Oswald" actually owned this rifle (or any firearm), then we would know for certain because the case would be clear and convincing. 

But it isn't. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Armstrong has exhaustive chapters in HARVEY AND LEE

following the alleged chain of evidence, documents, and other details and finding no credible evidence that Oswald owned either gun. The FBI expert who testified

to the Warren Commission could not link the pistol to the bullets

found in Tippit's body. And we all know about the problems

with the planted rifle, part of what Oswald was speaking about when he told his brother Robert on November 23, "Don't believe all this so-called evidence."

Edited by Joseph McBride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Jolliff, I will run down some comments on the points you make.

2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Greg, 

Perhaps the most intriguing bit of evidence (wholly ignored) is Marguerite Oswald's interview with Joachim Joesten in which she claimed that "Oswald" never lived on Neely Street (which he too claimed to Captain Fritz). Instead, said Marguerite, Marina "lived there with another man." 

I don't know why "Oswald" denied ever living at Neely, if he actually did live there, yet he vehemently denied it! Read Captain Fritz's summary. (The so-called evidence "Oswald" ever lived on Neely is paper thin.)

I don't know why Marguerite claimed that Marina lived on Neely with another man, but that is what she told Joesten!

By all accounts, the marriage between Marina and "Oswald" was one punctuated by quarrels and separations. Is it so hard to consider that there was another man on the periphery of Marina's life?

That could be in the spring of 1963, but the problem with Oct-Nov 1963 is simple logistics: when? And if it was an affair, what kind of hot date is it to take Marina, cranky toddler and baby in tow, on an exciting trip to a local gun repair shop? If Marina asked, "why are we here at this sports shop?" what would she have been told? I do not think another man in Marina's life in Oct-Nov is very likely to have occurred without Ruth's knowledge. Why suppose that as the explanation of the Furniture Mart in the first place, instead of simply Lee with Marina?

2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

(I realize that is speculative, but so is your thesis that "Oswald" sold the infamous Mannlicher-Carcano on November 21 to someone who then set him up with it. Possible, but we need much more evidence.)

Thanks for clarifying the detail that no record of the two anonymous phone calls mentioned the name "Dial Ryder." My mistake.

However, my basic point still stands: the point of these anonymous calls was to put a rifle physically into "Oswald's" hands.

Its possible (that that was the point of the anonymous phone calls). But anonymous tips often point to true things not necessarily false things. As I understand it you do see as true that a man representing himself as Oswald was at the Irving Sports Shop with a rifle. What I do not follow is how a later malevolent intent to show past linkage of Oswald to a rifle being used to frame Oswald means Oswald was not linked to that rifle, i.e. that the past link pointed to was fraudulent. That is the logical leap I am not following. 

I am suggesting Oswald was framed with that rifle because it had been a rifle in Oswald's possession. That was the beauty of having that rifle believed to be the assassination weapon. 

3 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Consider:

At that moment, late Sunday afternoon or early evening, the best the FBI had were some (very sketchy) order documents from Kleins. No one at the post office could put any rifle into the hands of the accused, whether he used "Oswald" or "Hidell" or anything else. 

OK.

3 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

No one ever saw "Oswald" shoot anything with this or any other rifle. (Marina's obvious whoppers about shooting leaves in parks notwithstanding.)

OK, except . . . 

There is the claim of David Surrey, son of Robert Surrey, assistant to Gen. Walker, that as a young boy he accompanied his father and Oswald ("Lee") taken by his father to "the woods, which at that time would be modern day Richardson, a norther suburb of Dallas, to shoot" (told in Gayle Nix Jackson, Pieces of the Puzzle: An Anthology (2017), p. 225. Since this was told in a video made in 2012, a long time later, it is understandable to view this story critically, principally over the question of whether the Oswald identification in memory was correct. David was the older of two brothers. Gayle tracked down a younger Surrey son, William, and William too says he remembered going shooting with his father and Oswald, whom William too says was Oswald, though William claims Gen. Walker himself was with Surrey Sr. and Oswald and young William in going shooting (p. 226). 

While that sounds far-fetched and maybe it is (but the full chapter of Gayle's book merits reading because there is more there than this), there is that separate story of Bradford Angers (a spooky sounding character to me, but he definitely was not stupid), the "private investigator" who used to work for H. L. Hunt and who claimed he had a taped account from Larrie Schmidt-- (Angers did not make the Larrie Schmidt identification of the person whom he kept anonymous but that is who it clearly is)--telling a version of the Walker shooting different from the familiar narrative (this in an interview in 1992 reported by Dick Russell).

"Somehow that spring of '63, the brother [= Robert Schmidt] had made friends with Oswald, who was trying to get close to Walker. But this fellow I knew [= Larrie Schmidt] had never met Oswald, I don't think, until his brother introduced them that night in April. The three of them got drunk together. They got in a car and the brother said, 'Somebody ought to shoot that no-good son of a bitch Walker.' And this fellow said, 'I've got news for you, I got him kicked out of the goddamned Army in Germany.' Then Oswald said, 'I've got a rifle, let's go hit the son of a bitch.' The three of them drove down St. John's Avenue, and stopped the car next to a little stone bridge that went over Turtle Creek. The brother and Oswald went down the creek, and Oswald laid on the embankment looking at Walker's house. Remember the great big window Walker had in the front? Walker was a nut, he would turn up a lamp and just pace back and forth reading in the room. They saw his shadow against the back wall and Oswald pumped off a shot. It hit the wall instead. Then they jumped in the car and took off." (Dick Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much [1992], pp. 325-27)

Russell reports he contacted Walker (still living at the time) and asked him about this story, and Walker said he had been told that story and that it could be true (p. 327). I have read that Larrie Schmidt denied the story (cannot immediately locate the reference on the denial). 

In one of the most amazing lacunas of the JFK assassination saga, Robert Schmidt--whom a veteran investigator in the surveillance equipment business with Army security background, has soberly alleged having been told by Robert's brother that Robert was with Oswald when the shot was fired through Gen. Walker's window--Robert Schmidt has never, to my knowledge, been interviewed or attempted to be interviewed by any researcher or journalist or investigator, ever. And he is apparently still alive today but nobody thinks that very important to check.

That there was something to do with Oswald, a shot fired through Gen. Walker's window, and a rifle, is not easy to say was a complete fabrication out of thin air. There is Marina. There is DeMohrenschildt's account of getting the pale, frozen look from Oswald when he, DeMohrenschildt, asked of Lee as a joke after the Walker shooting was in the news, "Did you take a potshot at Walker?" (DeMohrenschildt's claim of the question) or "How could you have missed?" (Marina's earlier version; that wording denied by DeMohrenschildt)--referring to neither of them liked Walker's politics. There is the letter in Lee's handwriting of instructions to Marina, dated about that time, of what to do if Lee was arrested. There is the photo of Walker's house found among Oswald's belongings. There is the Backyard Photo copy produced by DeMohrenschilt with epigraph in Marina's handwriting, written in Russian, making a joke about Lee: "Hunter of fascists. Ha ha!" There is this credible story told by Dallas Russian emigre Mrs. Natasha Voshinin (told in a 1992 interview of her by Dick Russell):

"[N]ot long after the Walker shooting, Mrs. Natasha Voshinin recalled de Mohrenschildt dropping by to see them one evening. 'He said, "Listen, that fellow Oswald is absolutely suspicious, you are right.' Thousands of times before, he would say we were wrong. "Imagine," George said, "that scoundrel took a potshot at General Walker. Of course Walker is a stinker, but stinkers have the right to live." Then he told us something about the rifle. But Igor [husband] and I felt Oswald had some connection with CIA. Anyway, I immediately delivered this information [from de Mohrenschildt] to the FBI.'

"That last statement seemed to me a remarkable one, for according to the Warren Commission Report, 'The FBI had no knowledge that Oswald was responsible for the attack until Marina Oswald revealed the information on December 3, [1963].' Yet Mrs. Voshinin was saying she had alerted the FBI of the possibility sometime back in April. Had the FBI looked into this at the time? Was the bureau's disclaimer of any foreknowledge in the Walker matter a fabrication, designed to cover up its prior awareness of Oswald? 

"Not only the FBI but, according to de Mohrenschildt, the CIA knew about Oswald's connection to the Walker incident long before November 22, 1963. On the day of de Mohrenschildt's death, author Epstein asked him whether he had discussed this--and the gun-toting Oswald photograph that Marina passed along to the baron--with his CIA contact, J. Walton Moore. 'I spoke to the CIA both before and afterward,' de Mohrenschildt is said to have replied. 'It was what ruined me.'" (Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much, 1992 edn, pp. 317-18)

Here is another random civilian who either is telling a glimpse of truthful testimony, or part of the ever-expanding number of civilian witnesses making up what you say are total fabrications about Oswald and the rifle.

It seems to me there is a false alternative set up: either Oswald was guilty in the narrative the Warren Commission set up, or he never had a rifle at all and everything--paperwork and witnesses--everything was forged, faked, suborned, and fabricated for the purpose of pinning a random rifle, which had nothing to do with Oswald, on Oswald. There have been plenty of law enforcement framings of innocent persons in history, but has there ever been a law enforcement conspiracy to falsely frame someone this grandiose, this far-sweeping, as you are supposing (referring to inventing a rifle for Oswald which he never had)? Breathtaking in scale, across multiple states, agencies, decades, broad swathes of civilian witnesses, the widow herself, and never a single of these false witnesses or agents involved in all that fabrication ever breaking ranks to tell of this vast operation for which not a single shred of actual evidence exists showing that it existed? Is there any falsification possible to that kind of thinking? 

Interpretation (mine): I do not think Oswald had anything to do with the assassination of JFK or the killing of Tippit, but the Walker shooting is a somewhat different matter. There was something going on in which Oswald was involved there, but exactly what is not clear. Rather than either-or--either Oswald tried to kill Walker or the whole rifle/Oswald is entirely a fabrication--it should be considered that there are more than those two alternatives. There are already variant versions of that shooting, as noted above. There is the longstanding suspicion starting from Night One on the part of Dallas police, that Walker or Walker's people had staged it. Walker's very slight injuries, his fortuitous escaping of serious injury, and his instant (with no evidence) laser-like focusing of public nationally reported accusations on domestic communists as the culprit, heighten that question. There is the lack of actual knowledge of where Walker was at the time of the shooting (though he did have splinters of debris penetrating skin on his arm seen by reporters minutes after). There is the only one shot and not second or third followups. Only one shot is very likely not to kill, raising the question of whether one shot through the window was intended to kill at all but only to frighten, and whether the shooter (if Oswald) even believed Walker was in the room at the time of the shot. There is the fact of Oswald not being a very good shot anyway (no secret to Oswald himself), along with no evidence of serious target practice at any point. 

There is the story of Mrs. Voshinin, and the separate story of Epstein claiming DeMohrenschildt told him he had told his CIA friend Moore about the Walker shooting and Oswald suspicions. Cases in which otherwise very strong suspects for crimes are mysteriously released by law enforcement or law enforcement looks the other way, often are because that person is protected by some agency and law enforcement is tipped off or quietly asked not to go there. There is the circumstantial appearance that that is what could have been going on with the Walker shooting and Oswald's involvement. The truth of the Walker shooting is misty and not clear. The still-living Robert Schmidt, whom nobody is ever known to have talked to or tried to talk to, conceivably could shed light on what happened, but apparently a living firsthand witness of the Walker household, whose own brother is alleged to have said he was with Oswald at the moment the shot was taken at the Walker house, is not considered of sufficient interest for any investigator to simply find and ask him.

And Walker, where something involving Oswald and a rifle happened but not clear exactly what, is the only connection of Oswald to firearm violence, there is no other. 

I do not think the solution is to try to deny that Oswald ever had a rifle, and that the entirety of all of the documentary evidence and the entirety of the witnesses are all forged and lying, 100% of them across the board. Such an easy explanation! But not the right explanation! These false easy solutions--just say the whole body of disparately acquired evidence is all forged and all lies, simple as that!--function to prevent genuine inquiry from getting at what actually did happen.

6 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Everyone, even you, now recognizes that the money order used to pay for the rifle from Klein's is a fraud. (Your speculation about a possible "benign" reason involving John B. Hurt and national security is both fascinating and well-thought out, but ultimately there simply is no evidence.)

I would not call it a benign reason. I would call it an alternative speculation as to why. I don't really know why. I just doubt that attempting to fabricate a connection of Oswald to the rifle was the reason in itself, since there are abundant other reasons independently indicating such.

6 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

My point in reciting all of the above, Greg, is to emphasize that on late Sunday afternoon, the conspirators were desperate to place the rifle physically in "Oswald's" hands. 

Before the Furniture Mart/Irving Sports Shop witnesses were identified by law enforcement, no one, and I mean no one, could actually put any rifle in "Oswald's" hands. 

I think there was. This is my theory of the case, which of course must be argued, but I think Tippit might have been a witness of Oswald at the time of the rifle conveyance, if not the conveyance itself, to the people who did the assassination, the day before the assassination. Tippit was witnessed present in the same restaurant at the same time as Oswald was there, eating at separate tables, by extremely high-quality witness testimony (a waitress who had known Tippit a long time). The rifle would be planted at Oswald's workplace and a "noisy" shooter would intentionally draw focus of attention to that window and that rifle, the rifle would be traced to Oswald, the rifle would have been seen the day before given by Oswald . . . the Backyard Photos . . . q.e.d. a Castro-sympathizer did it.

There was the Yates' hitchhiker attempting to show the random driver who picked him up carrying a rifle-sized package to the TSBD the day before, a Backyard Photo (?).

The anonymous tipoffs to the journalist and FBI of the past rifle sighting work at the Irving Sports Shop would be added bonus, if that too was phoned in by the ones who obtained the rifle from Oswald and did the assassination.

6 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

The conspirators knew this, and that's why the two anonymous calls were placed to first the DPD, and then the FBI. Both calls had the same misinformation ("Oswald" had a rifle sighted in on November 21"), but both were accurate about the Irving Sports Shop.

Anyway, the bottom line for me is this: if our "Oswald" took this rifle (or any rifle) to the Irving Sports Shop sometime in early November, the Warren Commission and the FBI would have trumpeted that news to the high heavens. 

Instead they buried it.

They knew our man was never there, and they were afraid closer examination and publicity would reveal an impersonation, and therefore, conspiracy.

And that was something neither the Warren Commission nor the FBI would ever admit.

That the FBI/Warren Commission rejected the Furniture Mart and Irving Sports Shop Oswald presence is true. But I disagree that the reason the (FBI/)Warren Commission rejected that was because of fear that knowledge of an impersonator would be discovered. As if they knew better but were covering up the imposter.

I think the reason the FBI/Warren Commission rejected those stories was because they did not believe they could be true, in terms of timeline, the testimony of Ruth Paine, the driving of a car, and possibly Marina's denial (though this last may not have been so much a factor to FBI/Warren Commission).

You are saying the FBI/WC rejection of the Furniture Mart and Irving Sports Shop Oswald events was a bad-faith rejection when secretly FBI/WC knew better (knew their imposter working for them had been there with Marina). I think the rejection of the Furniture Mart and Sports Shop Oswald events was a good-faith rejection (in these two instances) which they just got wrong. Just like Ruth Paine's absolute certainty it could not have happened was in good faith and also wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

re: the suggestion of a rifle at the Paine’s house in irving - my opinion is that there is something fishy, as Steve said. I also agree with Joe - Oswald never owned the rifle or handgun.

My opinion is there was a blanket that was an Oswald family possession. It might be seen in a couple of photos from the Neely St house, laid out on the balcony beneath young June. It likely travelled to New Orleans and back again and ended up in the Paine’s garage - but it did not ever hide a rifle. My assumption is that either someone rearranged the rolled blanket to form something like a rifle shape, probably during the day of Nov 22, or else there was some suggestive verbal element at play on its discovery which led to a consensus among the officers present that its shape was “rifle-like”.

Michael Paine, in my opinion, lied in 1993 about being shown a backyard photo by Oswald, and did so to help bolster the official story. Similarly, in my opinion, his laboured testimony about camping equipment in the blanket was also a lie told for the same reason.

Thank you Jeff for clarifying. My only comment here is on your last paragraph re Michael Paine. There are two distinct issues in your first sentence of that paragraph: was he knowingly lying (you say yes); and the reason (you say to buck up the official story). I think neither of these conclusions is really very well-founded. I do not mean that Michael Paine never could have shaded the truth. But I would like to suggest that the phenomenon of "lying witnesses" in the FBI reports and Warren Commission testimony, when they are civilians, to the extent that that happens--such as Marina for sure but others less spectacularly--is usually for free-lance reasons of individual self-interest, and not this large-scale "hidden hand" marionette-controlling unseen godlike controllers behind the scene scripting what witnesses are supposed to say, that seems to be a common undercurrent to a lot of thinking which I reject. That caricature is not aimed at you specifically but intended to communicate a point. When Marina lied, it was because she was scared of being tied to Lee's actions, not because she was trying to falsely implicate Lee because told to do so by handlers (that makes little sense). From all accounts, no matter how much domestic strife there had been between Marina and Lee, she did not want Lee to have killed JFK. She says she was at first convinced against her will that Lee had killed Kennedy, then later in life became convinced Lee was innocent (all believable, in agreement with what she would have liked to be true all along). Marina herself later said the reason she lied to the Secret Service and FBI in her early interrogations was because she was afraid of being implicated in Lee's actions, a very rational fear and no doubt the accurate explanation for her lying.

With Michael Paine, I doubt his testimony was scripted in the sense of being encouraged or instructed to say something he knew was untruthful. At least I see no evidence or cause to believe that. I see no credibility that Michael Paine was an accomplice or asset in 1993 in some ongoing larger operation to introduce conscious new disinformation for the first time. These kind of things can be imagined but where is the evidence. 

I think Michael Paine n 1993 may have told the truth, he had seen a Backyard Photo in spring 1963. The other possibility is that Michael Paine got timelines confused over time, which can happen to people as they get older. I think the former more likely because his later description of Lee showing him a BYP was rather specific. On his camping equipment description of what he thought was inside the blanket, that is either truthful or not (concerning what he supposed at the time that it was). If not it would not have been to bolster the official story but because he wanted nothing to do with having any knowledge of any rifle of Lee's. But the truthful interpretation, that he thought it was camping equipment inside the blanket, I do not see as obviously unreasonable as others seem to think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thank you Jeff for clarifying. My only comment here is on your last paragraph re Michael Paine. There are two distinct issues in your first sentence of that paragraph: was he knowingly lying (you say yes); and the reason (you say to buck up the official story). I think neither of these conclusions is really very well-founded. I do not mean that Michael Paine never could have shaded the truth. But I would like to suggest that the phenomenon of "lying witnesses" in the FBI reports and Warren Commission testimony, when they are civilians, to the extent that that happens--such as Marina for sure but others less spectacularly--is usually for free-lance reasons of individual self-interest, and not this large-scale "hidden hand" marionette-controlling unseen godlike controllers behind the scene scripting what witnesses are supposed to say, that seems to be a common undercurrent to a lot of thinking which I reject. That caricature is not aimed at you specifically but intended to communicate a point. When Marina lied, it was because she was scared of being tied to Lee's actions, not because she was trying to falsely implicate Lee because told to do so by handlers (that makes little sense). From all accounts, no matter how much domestic strife there had been between Marina and Lee, she did not want Lee to have killed JFK. She says she was at first convinced against her will that Lee had killed Kennedy, then later in life became convinced Lee was innocent (all believable, in agreement with what she would have liked to be true all along). Marina herself later said the reason she lied to the Secret Service and FBI in her early interrogations was because she was afraid of being implicated in Lee's actions, a very rational fear and no doubt the accurate explanation for her lying.

With Michael Paine, I doubt his testimony was scripted in the sense of being encouraged or instructed to say something he knew was untruthful. At least I see no evidence or cause to believe that. I see no credibility that Michael Paine was an accomplice or asset in 1993 in some ongoing larger operation to introduce conscious new disinformation for the first time. These kind of things can be imagined but where is the evidence. 

I think Michael Paine n 1993 may have told the truth, he had seen a Backyard Photo in spring 1963. The other possibility is that Michael Paine got timelines confused over time, which can happen to people as they get older. I think the former more likely because his later description of Lee showing him a BYP was rather specific. On his camping equipment description of what he thought was inside the blanket, that is either truthful or not (concerning what he supposed at the time that it was). If not it would not have been to bolster the official story but because he wanted nothing to do with having any knowledge of any rifle of Lee's. But the truthful interpretation, that he thought it was camping equipment inside the blanket, I do not see as obviously unreasonable as others seem to think. 

Michael Paine’s 1993 revisionist history re: Oswald showing him a backyard photo entirely contradicts two key facets of his Warren Commission testimony from 1964, both of which he spoke in great detail at the time. First,  recounting the initial meet with Lee, at Neely Street, when Paine arrived to drive the Oswalds to a dinner engagement at the Paine home in Irving, he describes a half-hour conversation in detail which fills ten transcript pages (WCH II, pp. 393-398). It is this encounter at which Paine would later claim Oswald showed him the photograph, but that incident is not recalled at all in 1964. Is his memory lapse, a year instead of thirty years after the fact, credible, particularly considering the weight or gravitas he would later apply to the supposed presentation? Second, Paine spoke of the “camping equipment” or a “folding shovel” during seven pages of transcript (WCH IX, pp. 437-443)  over-describing his thought patterns regarding the rolled blanket which he had unloaded from Ruth’s station wagon, carried into the garage, and had to move from time to time during the ensuing two months. While later accounts by members of the DPD that the blanket had the obvious form of a “rifle”, such thought does not even occur to Paine even though, should one take his 1993 revision seriously, he not only had direct knowledge that Oswald had been photographed holding a rifle the previous spring but also, according to his revisionist take, the photograph expressed Oswald’s deepest personal view of himself. It doesn’t really add up.

Note also that Marina Oswald was directly advised of a poor outcome concerning her U.S, residency should she not “cooperate” with a Secret Service interviewer on Nov 28/63, a threat which immediately followed the interviewer articulating details of Marina’s previous activities back in Leningrad, including specifically at a locale called the “Inter Club” (CE1792).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...