Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald --- Part II


Gil Jesus
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Sins of the FBI
by Gil Jesus ( 2021 )


One of the ways the FBI was able to control the narrative was to threaten witnesses who were positive about things they had seen with "federal charges" if the things they were reporting ended up not being the truth.
Witnesses were then faced with choosing between what they knew to be true, risking a prison time of 5 years, or go on the record as having been "unable to identify" or unsure.
It was a tactic that was successful in coercing witnesses to change their minds about what they saw and getting on the record evidence that was not necessarily true.

W.W. Litchfield
One example that witnesses were coerced comes from the testimony of W.W. Litchfield II, who told the FBI that he saw a man who looked like Oswald in the Carousel Club.
He told the Commission that the FBI threats definitely had an effect on how he answered their questions:

Mr. HUBERT. I gather that you were more positive of the identity of Oswald as being the man in the Carousel on the occasion we have been speaking about at one time than you are now?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. I was; yes.
Mr. HUBERT. What has caused your opinion in the matter to weaken?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. The fact that they gave me the polygraphic test, that showed when they asked me--was it definitely him, it didn't show up right, and the fact that I had told Don when I called him, I said, "It sure as heck looks like him," and when the police were questioning me, they said, "Are you positive, are you positive, are you positive?" I said, "It looks like him, it looks like him, it looks like him." And they come back, "Are you positive, are you positive?" And then the fact that when the Federal agents talked to me, they said, "You know, if you say you are positive and it wasn't him," it's a Federal charge, and I said, "Well, I'm not that positive."
Mr. HUBERT. The Federal agent told you if you gave an opinion----
Mr. LITCHFIELD. No; they said, "If you give false information as to an exact statement--" not an opinion, but if I say I'm positive, that's a statement.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, are you conveying to me that you really were positive, but that----
Mr. LITCHFIELD. In my mind.
Mr. HUBERT. You were scared off of it?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. No, sir; no, sir. I said in my mind I was positive that it looked like him, but I'm just as fallible as anybody else. I could be 100 percent wrong. I said, "In my mind, the man that I saw looked just like him," but then again, I can't say 100 percent.
Mr. HUBERT. And that is still your opinion?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. I said it bears a close resemblance, but not having come in contact with Oswald at all or having never met him or anything, and just seeing him for a fleeting glance, the back of his head and when he walked by me; no, I can't be 100 percent pure positive.
Mr. HUBERT. But you knew all of that the first time you told it to Green?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Well, like I said, "It sure does look like him--the man I saw there sure does look like Oswald," those are my words.
Mr. HUBERT. But, what has caused you to weaken in your opinion it was Oswald, as you tell it to me, is the fact that you got the impression that if you gave a positive identification and it proved to be false, that it would be a Federal offense, is that correct?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes; they said giving false information to the FBI, and I'm not 100 percent pure positive. I say, "It bears a close resemblance," and this is all I can say.
Mr. HUBERT. And that's all you did tell them?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes, sir; that's the statement I signed.
( 14 H 107-108 )


The FBI used threats against witnesses who were sure of what they saw to make them appear less sure in the official record.
This same tactic was used on witnesses who said they were "positive" that the man they saw was not Oswald.
Why were Federal agents present at the School Book Depository building, the Tippit murder scene, The Dallas Police station and the Texas Theater, when the FBI had no legal jurisdiction in any of these crimes ?

They were there to hear, question and intimidate witnesses.

These tactics seemed to work. Original stories like the one of Charles Givens, who at first said he saw Oswald on the first floor at 11:50 and then said he hadn't seen Oswald all morning.
Or Domingo Benavides, who was 15 feet away from the Tippit killer but was afraid of not being able to identify the killer if he said he could, so he declined to view a lineup.

But in the case of Marina Oswald, the threat was to deport her if she didn't "cooperate" with the "investigation". Deportation would have meant that she would have gone back to Russia without her kids, who were American citizens by birth. She'd go, they'd stay. The threat of losing her children would have been enough to make ANY mother tell them what they wanted to hear. True or not.

Marina Oswald
Had Oswald gone to trial, anything Marina Oswald said would have been inadmissible. Once he was dead, she could testify about anything "EXCEPT oral and written communications from her husband". ( Mosk memo to Belin, March 11, 1964 )

More evidence of FBI intimidation and threats of witnesses comes no less from Oswald's brother Robert, who told the Commission that he overheard the FBI threaten to deport Marina Oswald if she did not cooperate with them.

Mr. OSWALD. In my presence. And the tone of the reply between this gentle man and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time. And she was refusing to. And they were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words, as I sat there--if I might state--with Secret Service Agent Gary Seals, of Mobile, Ala.--we were opening the first batch of mail that had come to Marina and Lee's attention, and we were perhaps just four or five feet away from where they were attempting this interview, and it came to my ears that they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps--I say, again, I am implying--in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia.
( 1 H 410 )


The FBI even brought an agent from the Immigration and Naturalization Service in to the Inn at Six Flags to talk to Marina and advise her to "help" the FBI:

Mr. RANKIN. Did you see anyone from the Immigration Service during this period of time?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who that was?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember the name. I think he is the chairman of that office. At least he was a representative of that office.
Mr. RANKIN. By "that office" you mean the one at Dallas?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was told that he had especially come from New York, it seems to me.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to you?
Mrs. OSWALD. That if I was not guilty of anything, if I had not committed any crime against this Government, then I had every right to live in this country. This was a type of introduction before the questioning by the FBI. He even said that it would be better for me if I were to help them.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you what he meant by being better for you?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the sense that I would have more rights in this country. I understood it that way.
( 1 H 80 )


Not only did the FBI intimidate, coerce and threaten the witnesses, they flat out lied in their reports about what the witnesses said.
In this youtube video I did years ago, I give three examples of FBI reports that lied about what the witnesses said.
 


Influencing and altering what the witnesses said was not the only sin of the FBI. They actively participated in the framing of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

How would they have done this ?

With the help of the Postal Inspector in Dallas, very easily.

I don't believe that any rifle was ever ordered or shipped. I believe that the paperwork is all faked. The FBI had the 40" rifle serial number C2766 in their possession on the night of the assassination and I believe they made up the paperwork AFTER the assassination to match the rifle.

It wasn't necessary for Klein's to be involved in the framing, all they had to do was whatever the FBI requested they do. If the FBI wanted blank order forms, they'd get them. If they wanted order forms filled out or partially filled out, they'd get them. All they had to say was that they wanted them for comparison. Under the circumstances, Klein's would have complied with whatever the FBI wanted.

They could very well have filled out the form and left the control number and the serial number blank. Examination of the Waldman 7 indicates that more than one person filled out the form.
 


In order for Oswald to have used the rifle before the attack on General Walker, he had to have ordered it in March, 1963. But the only rifle Klein's had in stock at the time was the 36" rifle. So they produced the paperwork from a 36" rifle and filled in the serial number of the 40" rifle.

This would have been very easy for the FBI to do, using blank or partially filled out forms from Klein's and filling in the serial number by hand. Then microfilm the records and destroy the originals.

The only record they couldn't change was the one from Crescent Firearms, that said that the 40" rifle was sold in June of 1962. They simply ignored this.

That would explain why the 36 " rifle with bottom sling mounts they "shipped" had the same serial number as the 40 " rifle with side sling mounts.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was against the forming of a Presidential Commission. He wanted his report of December 5, 1963 to stand as the final word on the assassination. Unable to prevent the forming of the commission, he was determined to control it by controlling the information it got.

The FBI did this by coercing and intimidating witnesses into saying what they wanted to hear, they lied in their reports, they ignored witnesses and in the end controlled who would testify for the public record and who would not.

Witnesses who were among the closest to the President, like Charles Brehm and William Newman, were purposely kept off the witness list because they believed at least one shot came from the picket fence to the right and in front of the President.

By ignoring these witnesses, the FBI controlled what information the Commission and the public would get.

But the framing of how Oswald PAID FOR and ORDERED the rifle required the help and cooperation of the FBI's friend and informant, the Dallas Postal Inspector.

Next week: Part III, the sins of the Dallas Postal Inspector

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Great observations by Gil Jesus. 

Indeed.

What is mysterious is whether the frame of "Oswald" was entirely after-the-fact, at least when it came to the rifle. I agree with Gil that the paperwork for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is all phony. I agree that the FBI forged it, probably in the manner Gil described. 

OK.

But the post-assassination paperwork framing was done early on Saturday morning in Chicago at Klein's. 

So why didn't the plotters plant a rifle on "Oswald" that could actually be traced to him without all the late-night B.S.?

Was the Mannlicher-Carcano ever in the TSBD at all, or did it later enter the evidence stream as a substitute for whatever had been originally planted on the sixth floor?

If it was always intended to be "Oswald's" throwdown rifle, then why didn't the conspirators link it to him in any meaningful way before the assassination? Surely they had considered that part of the plan, right?

Yet they were even reduced to making anonymous phone calls to both the Dallas PD and the FBI on Sunday afternoon/evening to try to link "Oswald" with the Mannlicher-Carcano  and the Irving Sports Shop!

This smells like a frenzied improvisation by the conspirators. If they couldn't get the FBI to go along with the fantasy that it was indeed "Oswald's" rifle, the whole frameup would fall apart. 

I don't think the Mannlicher-Carcano was originally intended to be the rifle. 

Sylvia Meagher wrote the same thing more than 50 years ago. 

She was right. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Indeed.

What is mysterious is whether the frame of "Oswald" was entirely after-the-fact, at least when it came to the rifle. I agree with Gil that the paperwork for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is all phony. I agree that the FBI forged it, probably in the manner Gil described. 

OK.

But the post-assassination paperwork framing was done early on Saturday morning in Chicago at Klein's. 

So why didn't the plotters plant a rifle on "Oswald" that could actually be traced to him without all the late-night B.S.?

Was the Mannlicher-Carcano ever in the TSBD at all, or did it later enter the evidence stream as a substitute for whatever had been originally planted on the sixth floor?

If it was always intended to be "Oswald's" throwdown rifle, then why didn't the conspirators link it to him in any meaningful way before the assassination? Surely they had considered that part of the plan, right?

Yet they were even reduced to making anonymous phone calls to both the Dallas PD and the FBI on Sunday afternoon/evening to try to link "Oswald" with the Mannlicher-Carcano  and the Irving Sports Shop!

This smells like a frenzied improvisation by the conspirators. If they couldn't get the FBI to go along with the fantasy that it was indeed "Oswald's" rifle, the whole frameup would fall apart. 

I don't think the Mannlicher-Carcano was originally intended to be the rifle. 

Sylvia Meagher wrote the same thing more than 50 years ago. 

She was right. 

 

 

I can't speak for serious JFKA researcher Larry Hancock, but he also has said the post-JFKA cover-up has an ad-hoc, frenetic, unplanned look and feel about it. 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27073-towards-a-simple-plausible-yet-explanatory-conspiracy-theory/

The above is my explanation of the JFKA, which explains a lot, but cannot be proven.  LHO as an inadvertent patsy. 

A stray thought: 

In 1954 Puerto Rican nationalists sprayed gunfire inside the US Capitol building. They obviously did not plan to get away, but were making a statement. 

Suppose the true assassins of JFK were not so concerned about getting away with it. But they escaped anyway, as the White House-national security state decision was made to make LHO the patsy.  

Keep the thinking caps on....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I can't speak for serious JFKA researcher Larry Hancock, but he also has said the post-JFKA cover-up has an ad-hoc, frenetic, unplanned look and feel about it. 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27073-towards-a-simple-plausible-yet-explanatory-conspiracy-theory/

The above is my explanation of the JFKA, which explains a lot, but cannot be proven.  LHO as an inadvertent patsy. 

A stray thought: 

In 1954 Puerto Rican nationalists sprayed gunfire inside the US Capitol building. They obviously did not plan to get away, but were making a statement. 

Suppose the true assassins of JFK were not so concerned about getting away with it. But they escaped anyway, as the White House-national security state decision was made to make LHO the patsy.  

Keep the thinking caps on....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ben, it is good to consider all possibilities, but I don't see any reasonable way to assume that our "Oswald" was selected as the designated patsy after the fact. There are too many pre-assassination anomalies to consider:

1. Someone went to the Sports Drome Rifle Range and used the name "Oswald". Actually, on one occasion, two men went, and one of them used the name "Frazier". This would seem to be evidence of a pre-assassination plot to frame Buell Wesley Frazier and "Oswald." 

I have long believed that the plotters intended the conspiracy to be known as a pro-Castro plot, complete with multiple shooters. All of the "single-bullet-theory" nonsense was necessitated by the decision to pin everything on the dead "Oswald." 

2. Ralph Yates did pick up a hitchhiker who used the name "Oswald" (complete with a rifle!) and dropped him in Dealey Plaza. This person was not our "Oswald". 

3. The CIA deliberately withheld from the rest of the national security state (including the FBI) the key "information" (now demonstrably false, but at the time it would have seemed to be true) that the "Oswald" in Mexico City had met with a suspected KGB agent/assassination specialist, Valery Kostikov. 

Such a message from the CIA would have triggered the security alarms around JFK, and our "Oswald" could not have been patsified by the plotters, if the Secret Service and the FBI knew about this (supposed) meeting with Kostikov.

4. The Sylvia Odio incident, complete with incriminating phone call. (I discussed that at length elsewhere, but my short version is that our man "Oswald" was indeed at the Odio apartment on Sept. 25 or 26 in the company of two virulent anti-Castro Cubans. I believe that "Leopoldo" placed his follow-up call to Odio to frame our "Oswald" ("He is loco. He says we Cubans have no guts. He says he would shoot Kennedy . . ." etc.) outside of "Oswald's" immediate presence. After all, if the original in-person visit was a deliberate impersonation of our "Oswald", intended to cast him as a violent, crazy anti-Kennedy maniac, our "Oswald" did not say or do anything in front of Odio to show it! Nothing! Not a word, not a sign! This proves beyond any doubt, that the original visit was NOT meant to frame "Oswald" as the assassin. No, that came a few days later in the phone call, when "Oswald" was not present to hear it!

5. The Downtown Lincoln Mercury incident in early November, in which an LHO impersonator claimed he would be in financial position in a couple weeks to buy a new car. This, of course, implied that our man was anticipating a payoff for some future (sinister) action. Our "Oswald" was never there, but someone was, used the name "Oswald" and made their visit memorable. 

6. J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo on Friday afternoon, around 4 pm Washington time  (long before any interrogation of "Oswald" had been completed, or any examination of any physical evidence could possibly have been determined anything), that "there was no need for further investigation as true subject has been identified." 

"True subject has been identified" ???

How the hell would Hoover have any idea, unless he knew in advance? 

Ben, these impersonations (and others, including the much-debated Furniture Mar/Irving Sports Shop incident - see my comments elsewhere on this site) were real and deliberate, which is precisely why the FBI and the Warren Commission had to bury them. Further, these impersonations were all "before the fact." They were all intended, in advance of the assassination, to provide evidence that our "Oswald" was an assassin. 

I have long believed that the confused, frenetic, ad hoc frame after the fact was the result of a development completely unanticipated by the conspirators: our "Oswald" was very much alive and in the custody of the Dallas Police on Friday afternoon! I am certain our "Oswald" was to be killed while "escaping." ( I think it likely he was to be shot on the McWatters bus when the two unnamed DPD officers boarded and "searched the passengers for weapons." Only the fact that he had just left the bus saved him. Famously, his arrest at the Texas Theater almost resulted in his death. Again, only his quick actions saved him.) "Oswald's" death on Friday afternoon was crucial for the conspirators - if he wasn't dead, he eventually would talk about whatever he knew.

Does this confusion (over whether the frame was to cover multiple patsies or just "Oswald") explain the (near) arrest and frame of Buell Frazier on Friday night? Does this explain the bizarre handling of the rifle (whatever it was) from the TSBD? Does this explain the need for both the planting of a bullet at Parkland, and the switch of that bullet while it was in the custody of the FBI? Does this explain a million other senseless discrepancies in the evidentiary chain?

I think it does. 

The plotters never figured that "Oswald" would make it through Friday afternoon alive, and they had to improvise like crazy once they learned he was NOT dead.

Incidentally, it was at this very moment on Friday afternoon that former CIA director Allen Dulles sequestered himself at "The Farm" (the CIA's secure training facility in Virginia) for 48 hours, until Sunday night. What Dulles was doing, who he called, with whom he met, any decisions he made are all unknown because the CIA to this day will say nothing of his three days there. 

But we know - he was directing the coverup. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Ben, it is good to consider all possibilities, but I don't see any reasonable way to assume that our "Oswald" was selected as the designated patsy after the fact. There are too many pre-assassination anomalies to consider:

1. Someone went to the Sports Drome Rifle Range and used the name "Oswald". Actually, on one occasion, two men went, and one of them used the name "Frazier". This would seem to be evidence of a pre-assassination plot to frame Buell Wesley Frazier and "Oswald." 

I have long believed that the plotters intended the conspiracy to be known as a pro-Castro plot, complete with multiple shooters. All of the "single-bullet-theory" nonsense was necessitated by the decision to pin everything on the dead "Oswald." 

2. Ralph Yates did pick up a hitchhiker who used the name "Oswald" (complete with a rifle!) and dropped him in Dealey Plaza. This person was not our "Oswald". 

3. The CIA deliberately withheld from the rest of the national security state (including the FBI) the key "information" (now demonstrably false, but at the time it would have seemed to be true) that the "Oswald" in Mexico City had met with a suspected KGB agent/assassination specialist, Valery Kostikov. 

Such a message from the CIA would have triggered the security alarms around JFK, and our "Oswald" could not have been patsified by the plotters, if the Secret Service and the FBI knew about this (supposed) meeting with Kostikov.

4. The Sylvia Odio incident, complete with incriminating phone call. (I discussed that at length elsewhere, but my short version is that our man "Oswald" was indeed at the Odio apartment on Sept. 25 or 26 in the company of two virulent anti-Castro Cubans. I believe that "Leopoldo" placed his follow-up call to Odio to frame our "Oswald" ("He is loco. He says we Cubans have no guts. He says he would shoot Kennedy . . ." etc.) outside of "Oswald's" immediate presence. After all, if the original in-person visit was a deliberate impersonation of our "Oswald", intended to cast him as a violent, crazy anti-Kennedy maniac, our "Oswald" did not say or do anything in front of Odio to show it! Nothing! Not a word, not a sign! This proves beyond any doubt, that the original visit was NOT meant to frame "Oswald" as the assassin. No, that came a few days later in the phone call, when "Oswald" was not present to hear it!

5. The Downtown Lincoln Mercury incident in early November, in which an LHO impersonator claimed he would be in financial position in a couple weeks to buy a new car. This, of course, implied that our man was anticipating a payoff for some future (sinister) action. Our "Oswald" was never there, but someone was, used the name "Oswald" and made their visit memorable. 

6. J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo on Friday afternoon, around 4 pm Washington time  (long before any interrogation of "Oswald" had been completed, or any examination of any physical evidence could possibly have been determined anything), that "there was no need for further investigation as true subject has been identified." 

"True subject has been identified" ???

How the hell would Hoover have any idea, unless he knew in advance? 

Ben, these impersonations (and others, including the much-debated Furniture Mar/Irving Sports Shop incident - see my comments elsewhere on this site) were real and deliberate, which is precisely why the FBI and the Warren Commission had to bury them. Further, these impersonations were all "before the fact." They were all intended, in advance of the assassination, to provide evidence that our "Oswald" was an assassin. 

I have long believed that the confused, frenetic, ad hoc frame after the fact was the result of a development completely unanticipated by the conspirators: our "Oswald" was very much alive and in the custody of the Dallas Police on Friday afternoon! I am certain our "Oswald" was to be killed while "escaping." ( I think it likely he was to be shot on the McWatters bus when the two unnamed DPD officers boarded and "searched the passengers for weapons." Only the fact that he had just left the bus saved him. Famously, his arrest at the Texas Theater almost resulted in his death. Again, only his quick actions saved him.) "Oswald's" death on Friday afternoon was crucial for the conspirators - if he wasn't dead, he eventually would talk about whatever he knew.

Does this confusion (over whether the frame was to cover multiple patsies or just "Oswald") explain the (near) arrest and frame of Buell Frazier on Friday night? Does this explain the bizarre handling of the rifle (whatever it was) from the TSBD? Does this explain the need for both the planting of a bullet at Parkland, and the switch of that bullet while it was in the custody of the FBI? Does this explain a million other senseless discrepancies in the evidentiary chain?

I think it does. 

The plotters never figured that "Oswald" would make it through Friday afternoon alive, and they had to improvise like crazy once they learned he was NOT dead.

Incidentally, it was at this very moment on Friday afternoon that former CIA director Allen Dulles sequestered himself at "The Farm" (the CIA's secure training facility in Virginia) for 48 hours, until Sunday night. What Dulles was doing, who he called, with whom he met, any decisions he made are all unknown because the CIA to this day will say nothing of his three days there. 

But we know - he was directing the coverup. 

 

 

Paul J.--

We agree on much, though I have a different slant. 

BTW I think LHO did meet with Kostikov, and also was impersonated in Mexico City. 

Around 1:04 mark, Kostikov says he met LHO. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYI4PqtIyE0

Well, who really knows? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Paul J.--

We agree on much, though I have a different slant. 

BTW I think LHO did meet with Kostikov, and also was impersonated in Mexico City. 

Around 1:04 mark, Kostikov says he met LHO. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYI4PqtIyE0

Well, who really knows? 

 

Ben,

Yes, I too have wondered about Kostikov's statement, although at the time he had no personal knowledge of "Oswald", so I don't see how he could know for certain whether he met our "Oswald" or an impersonator.

(Peter Dale Scott pointed out decades ago that after the breakup of the USSR, former KGB officers were belatedly willing to say just about anything.)

Also, I agree with you (and others, including Peter Dale Scott) that the assassination plot was probably piggybacked onto a "legit" U.S. intelligence operation, one which very definitely involved our "Oswald". Scott pondered whether such a "legit" operation even required that our "Oswald" be a witting participant - possibly, mused Scott, "Oswald" was directed (without his knowledge) by handlers who then used the "Oswald" file as part of a molehunt.

While that is an enormous topic, much discussed on this site in numerous other threads, I do think it bears repeating: at the very time the assassination plot was progressing in the fall of 1963, the CIA (at least James Angleton's Counter Intelligence office) was frantically trying to determine the identity of Igor Popov's mole within the CIA.

Did Angleton himself deliberately use his "legit" molehunt operation (which involved falsifying bits of information in the "Oswald" file) as cover to run an "off the books" assassination operation at the same time?

Many people think it likely.

I do too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Ben,

Yes, I too have wondered about Kostikov's statement, although at the time he had no personal knowledge of "Oswald", so I don't see how he could know for certain whether he met our "Oswald" or an impersonator.

(Peter Dale Scott pointed out decades ago that after the breakup of the USSR, former KGB officers were belatedly willing to say just about anything.)

Also, I agree with you (and others, including Peter Dale Scott) that the assassination plot was probably piggybacked onto a "legit" U.S. intelligence operation, one which very definitely involved our "Oswald". Scott pondered whether such a "legit" operation even required that our "Oswald" be a witting participant - possibly, mused Scott, "Oswald" was directed (without his knowledge) by handlers who then used the "Oswald" file as part of a molehunt.

While that is an enormous topic, much discussed on this site in numerous other threads, I do think it bears repeating: at the very time the assassination plot was progressing in the fall of 1963, the CIA (at least James Angleton's Counter Intelligence office) was frantically trying to determine the identity of Igor Popov's mole within the CIA.

Did Angleton himself deliberately use his "legit" molehunt operation (which involved falsifying bits of information in the "Oswald" file) as cover to run an "off the books" assassination operation at the same time?

Many people think it likely.

I do too.

Paul J.---

The Angleton scenario is possible, but he doesn't strike me as an operations guy. But maybe he gave the word to a Bill Harvey type.

I am reading SWHT by Larry Hancock, and David Atlee Phillips was in and around LHO at the time, and Dallas. Phillips dabbled on the operations side, but was more in propaganda. If Phillips really did meet LHO in Dallas, as alleged by Antonio Veciana, then I think we have to at least think about Phillips. 

I like my scenario due to the limited number of witting participants, and the ad hoc cover-up efforts post-JFKA. 

But, hey, since no records were kept and others destroyed....who knows? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2021 at 5:10 PM, Chuck Schwartz said:

Paul J. , I agree with you. The CIA / Dulles knew they were going to use LHO as the Patsy weeks before the Big Event.

Yes, let's cut to to chase here.  But I'd say months, not weeks.  He was set up in New Orleans, jmho.  Dallas was finishing touches, a handoff, Moore, De M, Ruth, orchestrated by others there.  

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2021 at 8:43 AM, Gil Jesus said:

 

But in the case of Marina Oswald, the threat was to deport her if she didn't "cooperate" with the "investigation". Deportation would have meant that she would have gone back to Russia without her kids, who were American citizens by birth. She'd go, they'd stay. The threat of losing her children would have been enough to make ANY mother tell them what they wanted to hear. True or not.

Marina Oswald

Had Oswald gone to trial, anything Marina Oswald said would have been inadmissible. Once he was dead, she could testify about anything "EXCEPT oral and written communications from her husband". 

Next week: Part III, the sins of the Dallas Postal Inspector

The older girl [June?] was born in the Soviet Union. She ultimately became a naturalized citizen. I don't know how naturalization laws were back then but my wife [who also was a Soviet] had to apply for citizenship after meeting requirements [in this century].... 

https://www.uscis.gov/forms/explore-my-options/become-a-us-citizen-through-naturalization

https://projectcitizenship.org/become-a-citizen/faq/citizenship-for-children/

And yes...according to law in Texas and generally in the USA, a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse. It is much like pleading the fifth amendment...

  https://www.bauerlawgroup.com/blog/2020/february/can-you-refuse-to-testify-against-your-spouse-/index.html

However if some gal wants to voluntarily bear witness against her estranged old man---it's Katy bar the door [despite common thoughts that they just can't stick it to their hubby]

The younger daughter [Rachel?] was born in Dallas Parkland [I believe]

I hope that Gil is aware that Harry Holmes was dispatched to "interview" Lee Oswald until Jack Ruby had made it into the police basement.

I appreciate his work and dedication.

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...