Jump to content
The Education Forum

Leading arguments Oswald was innocent/guilty of personally shooting/killing JFK


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

That's  interesting Greg. I have 2 questions, when I read the Mike Robinson story. I thought the dialog he accounted seemed like there was  too much discovery or exposition.

(angrily) 'You knew you were supposed to kill Lee,' followed by icy silence, then the same voice in the same nasty tone, 'then, you stupid son of a bitch, you go kill a cop .... '"

Young Mike learns of an agreed upon intention by the three there to kill "Lee" and about  a person who was to kill Lee, who ended up killing Tippit. That's a lot of incriminating info! One  question comes up. Why would they refer to Oswald as "Lee". unless they knew him. In the context, it's obvious who the person is, so why not refer to Oswald as "' him".

Kirk yes, this Mike Robinson memory suffers from all of the cautions late reports of memory have. He overheard something traumatizing, but was it possibly overhearing simple police venting anger and rage over the news of the death of officer Tippit, i.e. no overhearing of police conspiracy to kill, even though that is what it sounded like to 14-year old ears, as it was developed in memory?

Another question: I would think a normal reaction would be to tell some adult. I cannot imagine when I was 14 if I heard something like that, not telling some adult I trusted. Who knows, maybe he did, nothing came of it, then Oswald was killed and the adult got real serious with young Mike and told him not to say a single further word about it. A lot can be imagined but perhaps Mike Robinson's 2020 oral history sheds light on this.

9 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I may have forgotten some details, but I had heard that Oswald initially went up to the balcony and then went below.  I heard he visibly changed seats as if he was looking for someone else in the theater to connect with.

This is interesting because for a while I had the same misunderstanding, a common misunderstanding. Oswald did change seats on the lower level--sat down next to someone who left, then he got up and went out and bought popcorn, then returned and sat down next to someone else in a different location, then moved to a different seat by himself (according to witnesses)--but that was all on the lower main level and there is no information Oswald ever went up into the balcony. Nor is there any information that the man who ran up into the balcony--the ticket-crasher, the killer of Tippit--came down from the balcony to the main floor seating level prior to being questioned by police at the time of and after Oswald's arrest.

Two individuals, and neither of them changed floor levels.

Butch Burroughs, the usher, insisted to James Douglass that he saw a second person arrested--handcuffed--and led out back several minutes after Oswald was arrested and taken out front. 

"Butch Burroughs, who witnessed Oswald's arrest, startled me in his interview by saying he saw a second arrest occur in the Texas Theater only 'three or four minutes later.' He said the Dallas Police then arrested 'an Oswald lookalike.' Burroughs said the second man 'looked almost like Oswald, like he was his brother or something.' When I questioned the comparison by asking, 'Could you see the second man as well as you could see Oswald?' he said, 'Yes, I could see both of them. They looked alike.' After the officers half-carried and half-dragged Oswald to the police car in front of the theater, within a space of three or four minutes, Burroughs saw the second Oswald [sic] placed under arrest and handcuffed. The Oswald look-alike, however, was taken by police not out the front but out the back of the theater." (Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable [2008], citing interview with Burroughs of 2007)

Douglass and others have mistakenly reconstructed that both Oswald and the "lookalike" went into the balcony, based on Burroughs saying he did not see Oswald enter. Then Douglass says Oswald, also the "lookalike" as well, each came down on their own separately to the main floor. There is no basis for that in either case. The way Oswald entered the theater would have been by buying a ticket and going in the main seating area and taking a seat. He would have bought the ticket from Callahan, the manager that day who manned the ticket booth at the time most patrons arrived to buy their tickets. Callahan was not asked in his Warren Commission testimony if he remembered selling a ticket to Oswald. There is no written report of a DPD or FBI interview of Callahan, nor am I aware of an interview of Callahan by any researcher for the rest of his life. However there is this account of a talk with Callahan by police that day:

"Lt. Cunningham and I went into the theatre and up to the balcony section. There was a young man sitting at the top of the stairs [= killer of Tippit] and we ascertained from manager on duty [= Callahan] that this subject had been in the theatre since about 12:05 PM. My watch indicated 1:55 P.M. at that time. At this time I heard someone in a loud voice say from the main floor, 'He's down here!' [= Oswald]" (Det. John Toney, DPD report, 12/3/63)

I believe 12:05 may be a mistake for 1:05 and reflects an answer given by Callahan with reference to Oswald on the first floor present since 1:05, not the man in the balcony who arrived about 1:40 pm. There is no statement or testimony from Callahan verifying what he did or did not say that day. The man in the balcony is the man Brewer and Julia Postal saw dash into the theatre entrance area around 1:40 pm whom Julia knew had gone up into the balcony and told that which she told when she called the police.

Deputy sheriff Bill Courson tells of encountering the man on the stairs to the balcony [= killer of Tippit] just before police arrived and says he thought that man not simply looked like Oswald (as usher Burroughs) but says he thought that man was Oswald! Courson was mistaken--Oswald was seated on the main floor--but here is Courson's story:

"I pulled up and bumped the bicycle rack in front of the theater, left the car and went in and identified myself as an officer to the ticket taker [= Julia Postal]. I didn't know whether she even saw me or not, but I flashed by badge, then walked from there onto the stairs. I started up the stairs of the balcony because that is where the call [to Dallas Police from Julia Postal] said that he was hiding. I'm reasonably satisfied in my own mind that I met Oswald [wrong] coming down. I was looking for a man in a white or light colored jacket because at that time I hadn't been told that he [= killer of Tippit] had discarded the jacket and that it had been found. So there were two reasons why I didn't stop him [= killer of Tippit]. I'm looking for a man in the balcony, not coming down walking casually [from the balcony!], and the description didn't fit because he was wearing a kind of plaid or checkered patterned shirt, not the light colored jacket. But I'm reasonably sure that it was Oswald [wrong] (. . .) I went into the balcony and had the projectionist flip on the lights. I didn't see anybody that fit the descrption..." (Bill Courson, in Sneed, No More Silence [1998])

As told in the report of Det. Toney above, police arriving immediately after Courson questioned the man who came from the balcony, questioned him at the top of the stairs. But somehow that man was left free to go without his name being written or told by any police officer. There is no police record of the identity of that man (= killer of Tippit).

The one thing that for a brief time caused me to think Oswald had gone into the balcony before coming down was this Warren Commission testimony from theatre patron John Gibson.

Mr. Ball. I understand that one group of the police headed for Oswald?

Mr. Gibson. Well, I don't believe they really headed for him--I believe they just started down through the theatre. From what the boy told me--Johnny Pardis [= Johnny Brewer] told me, he [Brewer] followed him [= killer of Tippit] into the theatre and he [= killer of Tippit] went upstairs, and I believe this is why all the policemen went upstairs.

For a brief period I mistakenly thought this was a reference to a heretofore-unidentified additional witness named "Johnny Pardis". Then I realized "Johnny Pardis" was a mistake for, refers to, Johnny Brewer, and the reference is to the familiar story of Brewer pursuing the man who had been in front of his store and had gone into the Texas Theatre past Julia Postal without buying a ticket. That man--the killer of Tippit who was not Oswald--indeed had gone "upstairs" into the balcony.

This has been my reconstruction based on the facts as I understand them, but I think this makes clear why I believe Douglass and others have been mistaken in notions of Oswald moving between two floor levels, or that Oswald ever was in the balcony.

Oswald never was other than on the first floor. The killer of Tippit never was other than in the balcony. My reconstruction.

And the confusions in mistaken Oswald identifications at the Texas Theatre correspond to and render comprehensible the identifications made by eyewitnesses from the Tippit crime scene, in which Oswald was wrongly incriminated for the killing of officer Tippit.

Thanks for that timeline document!

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 2/5/2022 at 5:10 PM, Denny Zartman said:

Greg, that makes no sense. Why would the Dallas police ever want a recording of their interrogation techniques? They were ready to beat a confession out of Wes Frazier.

I assume the Dallas PD back then was a pretty tough place to be interrogated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jon Pickering said:

He didn't immediately flee Dallas. He didn't dip.

And the significance of this is . . .?

An argument that that person that got into that Rambler station wagon in front of the TSBD was not Oswald as Roger Craig thought, because if it was he would be gone from Dallas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg, many thanks for the enormous amount of new information you have provided me with. My observation on your lists is that most of evidence of guilt relies on faith in the evidence collectors. The same is not true of the innocence list. I believe the evidence collectors had a motive for tampering and there are concrete examples of this (Minox camera)

I don't surmise from this he was innocent of the shooting. I find the Prayer man narrative quite persuasive as evidence he was a non-shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi Greg, many thanks for the enormous amount of new information you have provided me with. My observation on your lists is that most of evidence of guilt relies on faith in the evidence collectors. The same is not true of the innocence list. I believe the evidence collectors had a motive for tampering and there are concrete examples of this (Minox camera)

I don't surmise from this he was innocent of the shooting. I find the Prayer man narrative quite persuasive as evidence he was a non-shooter.

Interesting point Eddy. One of the ironic things is that it was not assassination conspiracy people who first considered that the Dallas Crime Lab was fabricating evidence against Oswald, but rather the FBI liaison with the Dallas Police Department, Special Agent Vincent Drain, and the Warren Commission and chief counsel Rankin. That was the issue with the palmprint on the rifle barrel produced by Lt. Day. The print itself was verified as both from Oswald and from the rifle barrel by the FBI lab, but what is not excluded--if one goes the forged-evidence route--is that a genuine fresh palm print of Oswald, obtained from his corpse after he died, could have been secondarily applied to the barrel, then lifted from the barrel. Again, this was not conspiracy theorists raising the question whether Dallas Police had forged that item of physical evidence but the Warren Commission (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59637#relPageId=7).

On obtaining of inked prints from Oswald's corpse:

"Yeah,' Rusty [Richard Livingston] responded in his characteristically modest tone. 'J. B. Hicks and I rolled them off Oswald down n the Parkland morgue after they had done his autopsy.'

"'But why did you go down there?' I couldn't recall at this point having read anything about this before.

"'Aw, it was just a routine thing. Normally when a person is killed in an accident or a homicide or sometimes even a natural death, if they had a record in our Identification Bureau, we'd go out and fingerprint them to verify that yes, that was the person in order to clear our files. J. B. Hicks and I went down to the morgue at Parkland Hospital and fingerprinted him.' (Gary Savage, JFK First Day Evidence [1993], 93)

"As stated earlier, Rusty has an original fingerprint card that he and J. B. Hicks made of Oswald following his murder while his body lay in the morgue at Parkland Hospital Sunday night. At that time, the Dallas Police Department used a small fingerprint card which was manufactured by the Faurot Company of New York. To use the card, an invisible chemical was placed on the victim's fingers, and the card was then rolled over them. The paper that the card was made from then reacted to the chemical from the finger, producing a print on the card. This type of card was originally used by detectives on deceased individuals in order to avoid leaving ink stains on a body already prepared for burial.

"The reason Rusty and J. B. Hicks took a photograph and fingerprinted Oswald in the morgue was actually a routine assignment for the Crime Lab. 

"Rusty told me, 'In fingerprinting, normally a lot of times we would have to go to a mortuary where a body had already been prepared for burial, and if we didn't get to it beforehand, we had to go to the mortuary and roll a set o prints. We did roll some prints while Oswald was in the morgue. He hadn't been prepared for burial.

"Rusty and J. B. Hicks rolled at least three inkless cards and one inked card of Oswald that Sunday night in the Parkland morgue. Rusty retained one inkless card for his reference. The inked card was taken back to the Identification Bureau and was checked the following day against Oswald's prints taken the previous Friday. Rusty told me it was typical that, when a detective back at the office verified that the prints were indeed from the same person, the fingerprint card was usually initialed by him, showing it had been done." (pp. 110-12)

Some different officers took a second set of post-mortem fingerprints and palm prints from Oswald's corpse after the body was at Miller's Funeral Home in Fort Worth, as told by newspaper editor Paul Mosely who was there, and Paul Groody the funeral director. The ones who did this have been reported as FBI (so reported by Mosely in the Fort Worth Press on Nov 25, 1963) but SA Drain, for example, the FBI liaison, knew nothing of and doubted the FBI took such prints since they already had Oswald's prints from when he was alive (Lifton, Best Evidence [1982 Dell edn], p. 454). Lifton reports he could find no FBI record or document telling of having taken those post-mortem prints (p. 454). (Is it possible some agency other than FBI took those prints and the attribution to FBI was in error?) Lifton confirmed in personal interviews from both Mosely and Groody who were there that this fingerprinting occurred. It appears not only fingerprints but also palm prints were taken:

"I asked Groody if there was ink on his [Oswald body's] palms. 'It was a complete mess of his entire hand, which would lead me to believe that they did take prints of his palms.'" (Lifton, p. 454)

I have dug a little into the subject of police fabrication of fingerprints in criminal cases (e.g. 13 such cases are analyzed here: https://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/FE.html). The basic lesson is that there are several methods by which fingerprint evidence can be forged; forgeries are often difficult to detect requiring close scrutiny by experts; and even when the forgery would be easily detectible under scrutiny such close analysis or scrutiny typically is not done unless the prints are called into question (https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2745&context=jclchttps://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/chronological-review-fingerprint-forgeryhttps://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Chapter-2-Forgeries-of-Fingerprints-in-Forensic-Champod-Espinoza/0bcc5926d933c2d43f481384456d4b8073bfd2ae. This means it is really unknown how much undetected fabricated print evidence produced by big-city police departments has been used in court to convict persons charged with crimes, in addition to known cases. Those doing the fabricating often justify it by rationalizing they are assisting prosecutors and fellow law enforcement in the justice system in getting bad people off the street and put away, which requires getting sufficient physical evidence introduced into court according to the rules of the legal system.  

One of the most common methods of fabrication of print evidence is transfer of a print of a person lifted by tape to another physical item thereby causing a new print on that item. As it happens, the fingerprints and palm prints taken from Oswald's body at the Fort Worth funeral home on Sun Nov 24, taken for no clear reason and appearing in no document or reporting by any agency as having been done, are not known to be in existence today. Whatever the stated reason might be if whoever did that was asked, was an additional, or the actual, reason for those prints to have a reserve supply in case something was needed to help prove the case against Oswald, especially tempting now that he was dead and there would be no defense challenges in court, and the issue was making a satisfying presentation giving closure to the case? 

One sign of forgery that investigators have noticed is that forged prints often are unusually sharp and clear. That can be the case with genuine prints too, but genuine prints often are messy or less clear. This becomes of interest in light of the palm print of Oswald, noted as being unusually sharp and clear, found on the cardboard carton in the position where the sixth floor shooter might have sat before shooting--no known closeup photo existing for either that cardboard box or that palm print taken prior to Monday Nov 25, which is unbelievable given that the Dallas Crime Lab had a photographer taking photos with a camera in that location for two hours on Fri Nov 22. A person who did not know better might ask if closeup photos from Nov 22 of that cardboard box, or the Oswald palm print on that box or after having been taken from that box, do not exist today because there was no Oswald palm print on that cardboard box on Fri Nov 22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2022 at 7:12 AM, Greg Doudna said:

And the significance of this is . . .?

An argument that that person that got into that Rambler station wagon in front of the TSBD was not Oswald as Roger Craig thought, because if it was he would be gone from Dallas?

Got it - let us purge from history and our minds that he attended a picture show in his haste to flee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puzzling that Oswald was trying to flee for his life after walking away from the TXSBD but had no specific place at all to go? 

He had absolutely no escape plan after he supposedly shot JFK from the TXSBD except to take public transportation back to his room, arm himself and then take off again walking quickly down nearby streets? To where?

It was so irrational and no thought spontaneous. Suspiciously so.

Was Oswald that dumb that he didn't have an escape plan after doing something he knew would instantly create a massive man hunt by hundreds of trigger happy police?

He had an escape plan for the Walker shooting. 

Oswald wanted to live not die. You would think he would have had a better escape plan than the mindless one he tried.

Plus, he gave Marina all his cash handy money the night before. Having $150 dollars ( easy $1,500 in today's dollars ) in your pocket back then sure might have helped in a more thought out after JFK survival plan.

Was Oswald's entire effort a suicidal one?

Like he knew he would be killed soon after the event.

But, he has a last minute change of heart and decides "aww heck" I might as well at least try to get away."?

He ends up in the downtown store area and again tries to evade capture and death by ducking into a theater? 

Guess Oswald wasn't suicidal. 

But for a guy who was fairly street smart his escape plan was the worst and most mindlessly meandering and risky anyone could figure.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jon Pickering said:

Got it - let us purge from history and our minds that he attended a picture show in his haste to flee

No "got it". I was trying to understand your point, and asking. I don't believe you are actually recommending purging facts from history. I think you are being sarcastic in saying that. Without being sarcastic, or after being sarcastic, are you able to say simply and clearly what you are trying to say-- a conclusion, your point? I'm not disagreeing with your point, I just don't know what it is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Puzzling that Oswald was trying to flee for his life after walking away from the TXSBD but had no specific place at all to go? 

He had absolutely no escape plan after he supposedly shot JFK from the TXSBD except to take public transportation back to his room, arm himself and then take off again walking quickly down nearby streets? To where?

It was so irrational and no thought spontaneous. Suspiciously so.

Was Oswald that dumb that he didn't have an escape plan after doing something he knew would instantly create a massive man hunt by hundreds of trigger happy police?

He had an escape plan for the Walker shooting. 

Oswald wanted to live not die. You would think he would have had a better escape plan than the mindless one he tried.

Plus, he gave Marina all his cash handy money the night before. Having $150 dollars ( easy $1,500 in today's dollars ) in your pocket back then sure might have helped in a more thought out after JFK survival plan.

Was Oswald's entire effort a suicidal one?

Like he knew he would be killed soon after the event.

But, he has a last minute change of heart and decides "aww heck" I might as well at least try to get away."?

He ends up in the downtown store area and again tries to evade capture and death by ducking into a theater? 

Guess Oswald wasn't suicidal. 

But for a guy who was fairly street smart his escape plan was the worst and most mindlessly meandering and risky anyone could figure.

I think you may be listing some incongruities in an existing story that do not add up or make sense, as a way of saying you question the existing story's accuracy, not that you accept the existing story despite marveling at the incongruities. But you do not give a conclusion or say. I cannot tell whether your closing sentence is meant seriously (marveling at an irony in what happened) or is sarcastic (meaning you don't actually believe it happened that way, and mean to show that makes little sense). I question your starting premise that Oswald shot JFK. Many of the incongruities in his behavior starting from that premise fall away if that premise is removed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of curtain rods and paper bags

Getting back to Claude Barnabe regarding "curtain rods" the morning of Nov 22. I think Oswald carried neither a broken-down rifle nor part of one, nor curtain rods, in his ca. 25" x 5" paper bag of the size Wesley Frazier described which he did carry that morning. I believe what was in his bag was his lunch. If it had been curtain rods, there would be no reason for Oswald not to have said so to Fritz, and as you point out, told officers where to find those curtain rods at the TSBD or where he last left them. 

Oswald's paper bag that morning was not carrying a rifle either, not only according to Wesley Frazier but Linnie Mae who described Oswald holding the top of the bag in his hand at the end of his arm hanging loosely, with the bag going down almost to but not quite to the ground. A bag carried in that manner is consistent with the length given by Wesley Frazier, but inconsistent with the longer 34" length it would have had to be to carry a complete broken-down rifle.

All that needs to be assumed is that Oswald gave a false reason to Wesley Frazier as the reason for his unscheduled trip to Irving. In this light Frazier was truthful that that is what Oswald told him, and Oswald was untruthful to Frazier on the level of a white lie, on a matter which Oswald may have regarded as none of Frazier's business, but Oswald was truthful in the police interrogation on that. It is not clear that Oswald knew he was suspected of having carried a rifle to work that morning in a bag, at the time he answered questions about the paper bag as reported by Fritz and Bookhout et al.

Oswald having a 25 x 5" bag that morning, in light of the assassination that day, caused Linnie Mae to tell police she saw Oswald with a package that morning. I do not interpret that as any plot or lying on her part as some have supposed, other than trying to be helpful to the police, perhaps also to be quickly forthcoming in light of expected possible suspicion from police toward her (innocent) brother Wesley. I do not think Linnie Mae wanted to get Wesley into the ordeal he experienced with Capt. Fritz that day, when she told police of seeing Oswald carrying that bag that morning.

That Oswald had a longer-than-average paper bag that morning I therefore interpret as simple coincidence to the assassination happening that day, and not an unusual coincidence. First of all, Wesley's story of the paper bag's size is consistent, held up well including under polygraph, and therefore this is not a case of a coincidental match in size of that paper bag with the large paper bag made of TSBD wrapping paper, alleged (in my view probably correctly) to have carried the rifle found on the sixth floor. In my reconstruction that larger rifle-carrying paper bag also originated from Oswald (therefore unsurprising that his prints were found on it) but that bag was made from TSBD paper obtained by Oswald at an earlier date, going back to Nov 8 at the latest.

In this reconstruction Oswald had the scope reinstalled on the rifle on Mon Nov 11 in Irving, then would have taken the rifle to his rooming house in Oak Cliff on Tue Nov 12, where that rifle was located until it was sold or conveyed by Lee to another party, the Yates hitchhiker, on the morning of Nov 21. It is interesting that Wesley Frazier did not specifically remember giving Oswald a ride from Irving on any Tuesday morning, or on Tue Nov 12. There is also in the testimony that one of Oswald's days going to the TSBD from Irving--not specified which day but ca. early Nov--Oswald missed his ride with Wesley by not being on time, Wesley had already driven away, and that particular day Linnie Mae drove Oswald to the bus station in Irving, by which Oswald got to work that day.

Yet neither Wesley nor Linnie Mae told of remembering Oswald carrying a rifle-sized paper package at any earlier time than Nov 22 either. I therefore propose this for how Oswald could have gotten the rifle to Oak Cliff on Tue Nov 12 without having been seen by Wesley or Linnie Mae carrying a rifle-sized package. On Mon Nov 11, when Lee (with Marina and child and baby) drove Ruth Paine's car to the Furniture Mart and Irving Sports Shop, then to Hutch's Market spending some money there, without Ruth Paine's knowledge that her car was driven those places by Lee that day . . . to those trips of Lee taken with her car that day may be added one more: instead of taking the rifle--with scope newly installed--back to the Ruth Paine garage, Lee drove it to the local Irving bus station and stored it in a locker there, or some mechanism of storing it until the next day. Then Lee drove himself and Marina back to the Ruth Paine house. So the rifle did not go back into Ruth Paine's garage that night--and the rifle never again was in that garage after it was removed the morning of Nov 11. On Nov 12 the rifle would be in the large paper bag made from TSBD paper and Lee would have broken down the rifle again (ruining the sighting that Dial Ryder at the Irving Sports Shop had done and for which Oswald was charged and paid, which was always done at that shop when installing a scope per testimony).

On Tue Nov 12 Lee does not get a ride back in to Dallas with Wesley as usual. Instead, that is the unidentified morning when he missed his ride with (did not ride with) Wesley, and instead Linnie Mae drove him to the Irving bus station (which probably happened because Linnie Mae insisted, to help, even if Oswald planned to walk there himself). Linnie Mae drives him to the Irving bus station, drops him off. Lee retrieves the large TSBD-paper bag with the broken-down Mannlicher-Carcano from a storage locker, and takes it with him by bus to Oak Cliff, where he takes it to his room and stashes it out of sight. He then takes a bus to work to the TSBD arriving late to work that morning. His arriving late to work--on Nov 12 and Nov 21, two times at least--is not recorded on the handwritten time cards turned in by supervisor Shelley because Shelley, with the approval of Truly, is covering for Oswald. Oswald has his job at TSBD as a quiet favor to some agency, with Oswald witting and a participant in that (but not witting, any more than Shelley or Truly, to a planned assassination).

In this arrangement (as reconstructed) Oswald has ability to come and go during work hours at will without hassle and without being docked in pay. Somewhat unusually (so it would seem), the TSBD employees doing the book-order filling, of which Oswald was one, were paid biweekly literally in cash without paper receipts (not paid by check like other TSBD employees), nor was there a time-clock. The hours recorded were what Shelley turned in in handwritten form. All that needs to be supposed is Oswald could come in late or leave during the day and return as needed, with Shelley OK with that and that not turning up on time records. As Oswald's first landlady Bledsoe said Oswald told her the first week after Oswald returned to Dallas, Oswald anticipated possibly getting a job at Collins Radio. Oswald's seeming contentedness without complaint of the low-paying, deadend job at the TSBD could be if he knew that was only temporary and a better job was promised or anticipated (analogous to Oswald at Reilly Coffee in New Orleans thought he might be getting a good job at NASA). 

That is how I see the history of Oswald's rifle in the runup to Nov 22, 1963. It left his personal custody and possession and knowledge of its whereabouts after Thu morning Nov 21 in Oak Cliff. Oswald transferred the rifle--handed it over, broken-down in the large paper bag of TSBD paper it was in--to someone around 10 am on Nov 21 who then was picked up hitchhiking with it at the N. Beckley freeway entrance going to downtown Dallas, and was dropped off in front of the TSBD. That hitchhiker may have intentionally sought to implicate Oswald to random witness Yates, while conveying the rifle to the vicinity of the TSBD, into which the rifle and the shooter of the next day entered that night after business hours, unknown to Oswald, unseen by daytime TSBD employees, unknown to the Secret Service.

It is a reconstruction but above all it accounts for that Yates' hitchhiker.

Then on Fri Nov 22, Oswald's 25 x 5" paper bag had nothing whatsoever to do with carrying any rifle. It was total coincidence that it was a longer lunch bag than usual, and total accident that it became caught up in a police suspicion that Oswald had carried the rifle to work that morning in that bread bag.

For that is what it was--a bread bag. That Oswald left the Ruth Paine house early that morning, perhaps ca. 6:40 am, at a time when Marina and Ruth and the small children were still sleeping, and walked to Hutch's Market that morning, although not heretofore recognized in prior discussions, is soundly established on the basis of this:

  • Hutchinson, the owner of Hutch's Market, testified that Oswald came in sporadically several times (more than once) to his store to buy milk, cinnamon rolls, and bread, always in the same narrow ca. 7-7:30 am range, right after his market opened at 7 am. This was not a one-time visit but what Hutchinson remembered as occurring sporadically during the time Oswald was in Irving, which would include through Nov 22. If Nov 22 were not included in Hutchinson's memory of this, the latest possible time for a visit of Oswald to Hutch's Market would be Nov 9-12, but Hutchinson's language and description suggests Oswald's visits to his store continued later than Nov 9-12, i.e. Nov 22.
  • The time of morning Hutchinson remembered Oswald was there agrees with Oswald's schedule on days he rode with Wesley Frazier to the TSBD, whereas if Oswald was visiting Hutch's Market on non-workday mornings, such as Saturday or Sunday mornings, there would not be the strict need to arrive so early. Also, Lee's return to the house likely would have been noticed by Ruth Paine, whereas Ruth Paine said she was unaware of Oswald going to Hutch's Market. But if Oswald walked there prior to walking back to catch his ride with Frazier, he would not have returned to the Ruth Paine house, and Ruth Paine would not be aware of his going to Hutch's Market unless Lee happened to tell her, which there is no reason why that would necessarily have come up in conversation. 
  • The strongest point--and this cannot be overemphasized--is that Lee had to eat something going in to work to TSBD, which involved physically demanding walking around and lifting and perhaps climbing of stairs, all morning. That cannot be done on an empty stomach without eating in the morning. That makes no sense, so much so that it can be determined as a finding of fact that that cannot have happened on the morning of Nov 22. Lee will have eaten that morning; the only question is how and when. Yet according to both women, Lee only drank a cup of instant coffee the morning of Nov 22 before leaving the house. There were no fruit peels, nothing cooked, no indication of cereal, plate or glasses used, toast having been made etc and etc. Just instant coffee in a paper cup, then out the door. Lee in Oak Cliff was remembered by housekeeper Earlene as having taken food into his room, bread and lunch meat and, specifically remembered by Earlene, large quantities of milk consumed by Oswald taken into his room, bought from a nearby store. Oswald walking to Hutch's Market to buy milk and something to eat on workday mornings before his ride with Frazier, simply is in keeping with what would be normal for him to do. And that this must have happened on Nov 22--Lee having that mechanism of eating something that morning--is supported by the testimony of Hutchinson, so it is more than simply reconstruction but has testimony in support. 
  • This also solves a problem that has occurred to others--where did Oswald get his paper bags for his lunches, on the days he rode to the TSBD with Frazier? The answer on Nov 22--he got the paper bag from Hutch's Market, from his purchase there.
  • The ca. 25 x 5" size of paper bag Oswald had that morning is a bread bag size. Frazier himself tried to tell the Warren Commission that what Oswald was carrying looked exactly like a normal thin-paper bag one receives in a grocery store. Hutchinson specifically testified he remembered Oswald would buy bread at his store. A long roll of bread of some kind--whether french or italian or whatever--in a bread bag accounts for everything. It even accounts for if the bag looked outwardly to Linnie Mae and Wesley like it had something in it lengthwise, if perchance Oswald had eaten only part, or perhaps none at all, of the bread in that bag.
  • Wesley Frazier's (also Linnie Mae's) memory of the size and the way that paper bag was carried by Oswald that morning was correct, in keeping with the size of a bread bag but inconsistent with the larger and heavier TSBD wrapping-paper bag which carried the rifle, which also came from Oswald but earlier and unrelated to what Oswald was carrying on Fri Nov 22.

Of course a lot would have been avoided if Oswald had not told his "white lie" to Frazier that his reason for going to Irving on a Thursday was so he could get curtain rods. There never were any curtain rods in that bread bag Oswald took that morning carrying his lunch, nor was there a rifle in that bread bag either. There is no reason on earth why, if Oswald was unwitting to an issue involving his rifle and an assassination about to occur that day, that it would have occurred to him that there should be any reason not to carry a bread bag received from Hutch's Market that morning to work carrying his lunch that day, even if it was longer than usual. If Oswald realized why he was being asked about that paper bag, that could explain why he would deny having said anything to Wesley Frazier about curtain rods.

The mystery of the paper bag carried by Oswald on Nov 22 if he was innocent is gone. It was his lunch, and it happened to be in a 25 x 5" bread bag because that is what he had bought that morning, by sheer accident, which would mean nothing on a million other days, but on this particular morning was perceived by police as part of a narrative in which Oswald returned to Irving Thursday night to get his rifle, and carried it in that paper bag to the TSBD Friday morning.

But Frazier was right on the size (= bread bag) and appearance (= grocery store bag) of Lee's Nov 22 paper bag. Pat Speer has told of talking personally to Wesley Frazier and Frazier being adamant that Lee had no TSBD paper on his person carried to Irving on Thursday afternoon, which in the Warren Commission reconstruction Lee must have taken to Irving with him on Thursday and then fashioned the large rifle-sized paper bag in Ruth Paine's garage that night, using scissors and tape.

Frazier told the truth about the size of that paper bag and about what Lee had told him, and despite pressure held to his story, which held up under polygraph examination--because what Frazier told was true, even though that was not what the Warren Commission's counsel wanted to hear when he testified to that. The very truthfulness of Frazier's account of the size of Oswald's paper bag that morning, as verified under polygraph examination, may be the best explanation for why there was attempt to cover up the polygraph examination of Frazier.

So this is my take on that--it was not a rifle in that bag, not curtain rods, but bread. Hutch's Market. The explanation for how Oswald ate that morning rather than went to work on an empty stomach.

Gone--one of the strongest perceived evidences for Oswald's guilt that morning according to the conventional line of thinking.

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

I think you may be listing some incongruities in an existing story that do not add up or make sense, as a way of saying you question the existing story's accuracy, not that you accept the existing story despite marveling at the incongruities. But you do not give a conclusion or say. I cannot tell whether your closing sentence is meant seriously (marveling at an irony in what happened) or is sarcastic (meaning you don't actually believe it happened that way, and mean to show that makes little sense). I question your starting premise that Oswald shot JFK. Many of the incongruities in his behavior starting from that premise fall away if that premise is removed. 

Yes GD.

Everything either makes sense or it doesn't depending on whether Oswald did the JFK shooting or did not.

And/or if he was somehow involved or he wasn't.

Did Oswald shoot DPD officer J.D. Tippit?

Brutally with over-kill shots?

If so, why? 

I know I am just restating the most basic 59 year old questions and thoughts that a beginning JFK event student would ask.

But sometimes, even us older long time students fall back to these almost out of years of circular examination and contemplation with no definitive answers frustration?

Kind of a "let us start from the very beginning"  reboot?

Hoping that in so doing, maybe one can see or find something revealing that was somehow missed? 

I'm sure many older JFK truth seekers do this from time to time.

Worthy of posting? I don't know.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Joe I think it was worthy of posting, what you said is very sound to me, as long as it is clear that is what you were doing (showing incongruities in an existing story). My only mild suggestion is to put a serious ending sentence at the end saying that is what you were doing or meant. As is well known, subtlety sometimes does not come through well on the internet. Apart from that, sound thinking and a maestro with words, continue! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

A couple of observations:

a) if you had a 24” bag containing a sandwich and/or an apple, would you carry the bag from the top with 1 or 2 folds or would you fold the bag down to the contents? Reducing the length from 24” to 6”.

 

b) review BWF testimony regarding how LHO carried the package. Right hand cupped at bottom of package, top of package tucked under his arm pit. Not practical for a largely empty package, seems rather awkward. BTW in his testimony BWF stated that LHO told him he was buying his lunch that day. Recapping, Whitworth places the package length at 15” to 18”, Ms Randle places package at 27” and BWF places the package at 24” to 27”. We know the carcano is disassembled, my position is there were no curtain rods and no lunch. The package as testified to, is too short for a fully disassembled carcano but it is the perfect size for a carcano receiver/barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Claude Barnabe said:

Greg,

A couple of observations:

a) if you had a 24” bag containing a sandwich and/or an apple, would you carry the bag from the top with 1 or 2 folds or would you fold the bag down to the contents? Reducing the length from 24” to 6”.

b) review BWF testimony regarding how LHO carried the package. Right hand cupped at bottom of package, top of package tucked under his arm pit. Not practical for a largely empty package, seems rather awkward. BTW in his testimony BWF stated that LHO told him he was buying his lunch that day. Recapping, Whitworth places the package length at 15” to 18”, Ms Randle places package at 27” and BWF places the package at 24” to 27”. We know the carcano is disassembled, my position is there were no curtain rods and no lunch. The package as testified to, is too short for a fully disassembled carcano but it is the perfect size for a carcano receiver/barrel.

(a) good point, but removed if the long bread roll was still in the bag not yet eaten, then the bag would remain stiff lengthwise and carried as such

(b) what Lee carried into the Furniture Mart see by Mrs. Whitworth I have always assumed was just the scope, consistent with the 15" to 18" size and other dimensions remembered by Whitworth, that you note--not the entire rifle. 

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...