Impersonations of Oswald in Dallas, and Curtis Craford

[Greg Doudna]

Oswald in Austin, Texas at the State Selective Service office, Sept 11, 1963

A completely credible account of Mrs. Lee Dannelly, Assistant Chief of the Administration Division, State Selective Service Headquarters in Austin, telling of a visit of Oswald to her office has been widely rejected. The Warren Report and Bugliosi say there is no corroboration of Mrs. Dannelly's account, and since it could not have happened on the Sept 25 date indicated by Mrs. Dannelly, WR/Bugliosi simply suggest, citing no basis whatever, that Mrs. Donnelly--a professional woman in a responsible position with no known history of prevarication who gave specifics and details with nothing at all outlandish--simply made the whole thing up out of whole cloth for unknown psychological reasons! On the other hand, some conspiracy theorists who believe in large-scale impersonations have added this to the long lists of false Oswald sightings, thereby (so the logic goes) all the better to prove the vastness and complexity of conspirators who exasperatingly remain to the present day unidentified. 

I would like to remove the mystification on this one: it was Oswald, plain and simple. Mrs. Dannelly simply picked a mistaken date which was the cause of the problem. Once the date is corrected all difficulty is removed in seeing this was a genuine trip of Oswald from New Orleans to Austin, the last known act in a strenuous but fruitless attempt on Oswald's part to correct his undesirable discharge status in his military records. 

That the individual Mrs. Dannelly encountered represented himself to be, and was, Lee Harvey Oswald there should be no real question. After the assassination when Mrs. Dannelly saw Oswald in the news she identified him both from visual recognition and memory of his name. He had come to her office wanting to get his undesirable discharge changed to an honorable discharge. He told her it was preventing him from obtaining employment. She reported back to him that she could find no record of his name in the file locator cards kept at that office. Later she found there indeed was a file locator card for "Lee Harvey Oswald" among the fifteen Oswalds in Texas for which there were file locator cards in that office. She said she must have looked only for "Harvey Oswald" instead of for his full name "Lee Harvey Oswald" and in that way missed it. She then gave him printed literature with details on who to write to make an appeal and referred him to his original draft board in Forth Worth to obtain the information he needed. She said she spoke with Oswald for about thirty minutes, and that he was courteous throughout. 

In fact Oswald had already submitted a written appeal which had been formally denied, by letter from the Navy Discharge Review Board dated July 25, 1963, sent to him in New Orleans by registered mail.

The FBI could not find anyone else in the Selective Service offices in Austin who could confirm Mrs. Dannelly's identification, which is not too surprising given the length of time that passed and the numbers of clients served.

On the date: Mrs. Dannelly knew the visit had occurred on a Wednesday, one of the biweekly Wednesdays on which she was paid. She originally said she was not sure of the exact date but estimated it to have been six to eight weeks before the assassination. Subsequent to that she came to a "firm belief" that the date was Wed Sept 25. But Mrs. Dannelly's "firm belief" that the date was Sept 25 conflicts with the accepted timeline of Oswald going to Mexico City. For the Warren Report, this is evidence that Mrs. Dannelly's story is imaginary. For some conspiracy theorists this is evidence calling the Mexico City trip and timeline of Oswald into question--both sides accepting unquestioningly as their premise that Mrs. Dannelly's "firm belief" as to the date was the foundational fact. Yet Mrs. Dannelly never knew that was the correct date; that was a reconstruction on her part. After checking with her bank she told the FBI maybe it wasn't Sept 25 after all but could have been Wed Sept 11, although she still thought Sept 25 was the most likely. That is her last known word in the FBI interview documents concerning the date.

Because Oswald can be located at the front door of Silvia Odio's apartment in Dallas in the early evening of Wed Sept 25, that date being fixed on the basis of argument elsewhere, as well as the logistics of the Mexico City trip, the conclusion here is that Sept 25 is excluded as the date, and the correct date for Oswald's presence in the Selective Service offices in Austin was indeed Wed Sept 11.

There is also a witnesses' claim to have seen Oswald in the Trek Cafe in Austin which, if the identification is correct, would be associated with this trip of Oswald to Austin. After the assassination a regular customer at the Trek Cafe, L. B. Day, told the FBI he had seen Oswald in the Trek Cafe "about six or seven weeks prior to" the assassination, and that he had brought to the attention of waitress Stella Norman that she had served Oswald, which she then confirmed. According to an FBI interview of Day of 1/17/64 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10864#relPageId=10) 

"When [L. B. Day] first saw the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspaper a day or two after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, he was in the Trek Cafe located on South Congress in Austin. Present was Stella, the waitress at the cafe, whose last name was not known to him. On seeing the photograph, he said, 'Gol dang, Stella, don't you remember him?' Whereupon she answered, she did not.

"He then told Stella she had waited on that man, there in the Trek Cafe, about six weeks prior to this occurrence. He then told Stella that Oswald was sitting in the cafe one day when he, Day, was 'ragging her' (. . .) He reminded Stella that Oswald had been sitting on the third or fourth stool from the cash register and that he, Day, had sat on the last stool in the rear of the cafe. He reminded Stella that Oswald had what appeared to be a pencil in his hand and seemed to be 'jotting' on something; that Oswald kept looking in the direction of the kitchen.

"After reminding Stella of the above, Stella sat down and after appearing to give the 'matter some deep thought,' told him she too recalled seeing Oswald in the cafe on that occasion. (. . .) In conclusion, he wished to say that he was wrong as many times as he was right, but that he believed the man at the Trek Cafe was, in fact, Oswald."

This is from the FBI's interview of Stella Norman of 1/2/64 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10864#relPageId=6).

"This individual came into the restaurant and ordered coffee. He appeared very nervous. He kept fooling with the paper napkins and appeared to be writing or doodling on these napkins. He used three or four napkins and must have put these in his pocket before leaving as the napkins were not left on the table, ashtray or floor. The customer remained 30 or 45 minutes and had either three or four cups of coffee. He paid 10 cents for each coffee as the Trek does not give free refills on coffee. This customer was alone at all times. She did not notice his mode of transportation on leaving and neither did she notice the direction in which he left. Seeing he was nervous she tried to start a conversation with him but he did not respond. On seeing the photograph of the accused assassin in the paper that Sunday she exclaimed out loud, 'My God I know him.'"

Though it sounds consistent with Oswald, there has been a problem with reconciling Mrs. Dannelly's encounter with Oswald, with Oswald at the Trek Cafe if both occurred on the same day: Mrs. Dannelly was not certain which Wednesday it was but did know for sure that it had been a Wednesday, one of the biweekly Wednesdays on which she was paid. Stella Norman on the other hand did not work Wednesdays because Wednesday was her day off. Therefore it has seemed Stella Norman could not have been a waitress for Oswald on the day Oswald visited the Selective Service offices.

In studying the FBI interview reports on the Mary Ferrell site, I found that her employer, William Covington, owner of the Trek Cafe, had records, and while he confirmed that Wednesday was Stella Norman's day off, his records showed that despite that, she had worked two Wednesdays during the term of her four months of employment with him from July through November: Wed Aug 28 and Wed Oct 16.

If the visit of Oswald to Mrs. Dannelly's office and the person drinking coffee at the counter of the Trek Cafe was Oswald on the same day, the date must have been one of those two Wednesdays that Stella worked. The day Oswald visited Mrs. Dannelly was one of the Wednesdays on her every-other-Wednesday pay cycle: Aug 14, Aug 28, Sept 11, Sept 25, Oct 9, Oct 23, Nov 6, Nov 20. But of the two Wednesday possibilities for Stella Norman, the second, Oct 16, is excluded because it was not one of the Dannelly payday Wednesdays. The only overlap in the two sets of possible Wednesdays is Wed Aug 28.

However a different factor rules out Wed Aug 28: a Mrs. Dannelly bank records detail excludes Aug 28 in a way that is not the case for Sept 11 or Sept 25. The downtown location of her bank confirmed to Mrs. Dannelly that of cancelled checks Mrs. Dannelly brought and showed them, she had cashed two of those checks in person inside that location on Sept 11 and Sept 25, respectively, but no such check had been cashed by her inside that location on Aug 28, which Mrs. Dannelly remembered doing at that location the day she saw Oswald. 

The visit to Austin therefore cannot have been Wed Aug 28. Yet Oswald was not in the Trek Cafe any other Wednesday. Either Oswald was in the Trek Cafe after 5 pm on a Tuesday--late in the day before he visited Governor Connally's office the next morning (see below) and then Mrs. Dannelly at the Selective Service early afternoon on a Wednesday--meaning an overnight stay--or the Trek Cafe Oswald sightings are a mistaken identification.

In either case, the conclusion is Oswald went to Austin and was in Austin Wed Sept 11, 1963, at a time when he was living in New Orleans. After taking care of business in Austin he will have returned again to New Orleans. How did he get there and back? Probably by bus, his usual means of transportation when on his own. No one was seen with him in Austin--he went alone. He first went to the offices of Governor Connally in the morning that day. Then he saw Mrs. Dannelly at Selective Service a little after 1 pm. 

Today a New Orleans to Austin bus trip (511 miles one way) takes 10 hrs. 40 mins. Oswald could have saved money by sleeping on the bus both ways. However if it was Oswald in the Trek Cafe then there was an overnight, which would have the benefit of allowing Oswald rest and a shower for better presentation the next morning. The time of day of Oswald in the Trek Cafe would have been shortly after 5 pm since 5 pm is when Stella Norman's shifts began in August and September. (In Oct her shifts changed to starting earlier at 3 pm.) In early Sept in Austin the sun does not set until around 7:40 pm. A time shortly after 5 pm would have been daylight consistent with late afternoon.

If Oswald did stay overnight in Austin on the night of Tue/Wed Sept 10/11, no witnesses to that are known to have come forward. It is doubtful that any inquiries were made by investigators concerning that date. The lack of witness testimony emerging on its own to an Oswald overnight in Austin could be considered to weigh in favor of it did not happen, but on the other hand there is a known class of witnesses who, though knowing of an interaction with Oswald, wanted no part of coming forward and making themselves known out of fear and uncertainty. 

I think Oswald seen in the Trek Cafe sounds correct, and therefore Tue Sept 10, based on the witnesses' testimony, the description of not engaging in casual conversation which agrees with other witness descriptions of Oswald, nothing sounding unlike Oswald, and plausibility of Oswald in proximity. However nothing concerning Oswald in Austin Sept 11 is affected either way on this, other than the linkage of an overnight in Austin if the Trek Cafe sighting was Oswald. (There is no impersonation involved since the man never claimed to be anyone.)    

A Sept 11 date for a trip of Oswald to Austin, at a time when Oswald was still living in New Orleans, makes sense since Oswald was dealing with his military discharge issue when he was in New Orleans, not in Dallas. Oswald had been working with an attorney in New Orleans, Dean Andrews, on this case. Dean Andrews testified that Oswald had been to his law office at least three times and possibly as many as five times. Oswald's movements and whereabouts have unknowns and gaps during his time in New Orleans such that a trip to Austin on Sept 11 is plausible and nonproblematic on timeline grounds, in a way that is not the case after Oswald returned to Dallas Oct 3. Oswald's daily whereabouts and movements after his return to Dallas Oct 3 are known very closely with little room for a trip to Austin of which neither Marina nor Ruth mentioned or seemed aware of having happened at the time Marina was living in Irving. Sept 11 makes sense as the date in a way that Sept 25 or later does not.

Mrs. Dannelly's original estimate of "six to eight weeks" earlier than the assassination therefore becomes in reality ten weeks earlier, in agreement with Mrs. Dannelly's final word on the date in the FBI reports suggesting to the FBI that instead of Sept 25 it may have been Sept 11 (ten weeks before the assassination). 

Nothing is dissonant in the Austin witness descriptions from the real Oswald. There is no timeline problem once the date is corrected to Sept 11. Since this occurs about six weeks after Oswald had received notification that his appeal of his discharge classification had been formally denied, the trip to Austin could be interpreted as a last attempt on Oswald's part to appeal in person to Gov. Connally, the former Secretary of the Navy and fellow Texan, to whom he had already written about his case. The trip to Austin involves a known issue of concern to Oswald, the kind of thing that would prompt Oswald to go in person. 

From WC counsel Specter in questioning John Connally:

Mr. Specter. Governor Connally, in 1963 we were informed that Lee Harvey Oswald paid a visit to Austin, Tex., and is supposed to also have visited your office. 

It turns out that Oswald's first stop in Austin on Wed morning Sept 11 was the offices of Governor Connally. No written documentation has been brought forth confirming Oswald visited Gov. Connally's offices, and Connally himself testified he was unaware that Oswald had visited or attempted to visit. But there should be little doubt that Oswald did make that attempt. Was Governor Connally's response or that of his staff to the question of record of Oswald's visit limited to Wed Sept 25? Of course there would be no record of Oswald on Sept 25 for Oswald was not there on that date. The relevant issue is whether Connally's staff checked for Sept 11. 

The only account of Oswald's visit to Governor Connally's office is filtered through Oswald's telling and then Mrs. Dannelly's telling in a written statement of Mrs. Dannelly of 12/17/63 prepared by her for the FBI, and again in a newspaper story quoting her of that same month. It is clear Oswald is skewing what he says he had been told by others below. But overall it comes across as a very human and believable story of dealing with a bureaucracy. Mrs. Dannelly in her written statement to the FBI:

"I called Colonel Sinclair [supervisor] [on 11/24/63 after the assassination] and advised him I was positive this man [accused assassin of JFK Lee Harvey Oswald] had been to our office, approximately 6 or 8 weeks prior to that date (24 Nov 63). I could not recall any information that would make me positive about a specific date but that I was positive that it had been on a Wednesday. I have been having quite a bit of trouble with my back and legs for quite sometime, and the only times I have gone to town during my lunch hour was on our pay days to cash a check--we are paid on alternate Wednesdays. I was a few minutes late getting back to the office that day and Mr. Oswald was waiting to see me when I got back.

"Mr. Oswald stated that he had just come from the Governor's office to try to straighten out his discharge from the Marine Corps, which had been under other than honorable conditions. The Governor's office told him they did not have anything to do with such things but that maybe this office would be able to assist him. Mr. Oswald stated that at the time he was given the discharge under 'other than honorable conditions' he was told that if he lived an upright life for the next two years he could then make application to have the type of discharge changed to 'honorable.' He told me that he was having difficulty in obtaining a job, and holding a job, with that type discharge. Also, he said it was embarrassing to his family."

As told in a Washington Post article of Dec 20, 1963, quoting Mrs. Dannelly (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95629#relPageId=13 ).

"'He had been to the Governor's office to see how to get his discharge corrected. They sent him down here, because they didn't have any of the information that he wanted,' according to Mary Lee Dannelly, assistant chief of the administrative division of the draft system for Texas.

"Neither the regular receptionist in Gov. John B. Connally's office nor Larry Temple, Connally's administrative assistant who usually handles affairs of a military kind in the office, recalls or has a record of a visit from Oswald. 

"'He said he had first gotten an honorable discharge, but it was later changed to other than honorable conditions,' Mrs. Dannelly said. 'They told him at the time that if he lived an upright life, he could make application after two years. He'd been waiting more than two years. 'He said it caused him difficulty getting or keeping a job, and it was embarrassing his family,' Mrs. Dannelly said. 

"She said he gave his name as 'Oswald'; Mrs. Dannelly is 'positive' that the man was Lee Oswald. She recognized him on television. She thought he must have given her his first two names in some variation, because she could not find a card on him in Selective Service files at the time. She has since found a routine card under the name Lee Harvey Oswald."

It appears Oswald went to Connally's office, where he was perhaps told he could not see Gov. Connally and staff could do nothing to help him and referred him to the Selective Service office. Was there a phone call from the governor's office to Selective Service alerting them or tipping them off that they were sending him over? Then when Oswald got there and was able to see Mrs. Dannelly, she tried but could not find a file locator card for Oswald despite looking for it, even though there was such a file locator card on file for Oswald at all other times. Had it been temporarily removed for some reason unknown to Mrs. Dannelly who could not find it where it should have been?

And then Mrs. Donnelly, unable to understand how she could possibly have missed it, reconstructed the only explanation she could think of for how that could have happened, not realizing the real reason was because it had not been there. In any case Oswald spent 22 hours of round-trip time on that bus trip for nothing (even though Mrs. Dannelly sounds like she tried).

Conclusion: Oswald at the Selective Service offices in Austin was not a mistaken identification or impersonation. Oswald was there on Sept 11, 1963. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

"Oswald n Austin, Texas at the State Selective Service office, Sept 11, 1963" has been rewritten above

Edited February 23, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

The Downtown Lincoln-Mercury 

This was the most difficult case. That a man came to the Downtown Lincoln-Mercury representing himself as Lee Harvey Oswald is clear. The argument that the man was not Oswald and was an impersonation is tough to make (because it is an extraordinary claim) but indicated from the following factors, in approximately ascending degrees of strength:

• While Oswald definitely knew how to drive in terms of basics, and did drive Ruth Paine's car locally in Irving when she was gone one day (Nov 11), according to all reports Oswald was not a skilled or experienced or very good driver. Yet the Downtown Lincoln-Mercury "Oswald" driving a demonstrator car at high speed (up to 85 mph on the Stemmons Freeway if the report of salesman Bogard is to be believed, and Bogard checked out as truthful under polygraph examination) is the behavior of an experienced and skilled driver, not the hesitant and inexperienced driving of Oswald according to all other information and witnesses.
• The behavior of driving very recklessly, and behaving unreasonably in attempting to obtain an expensive new car the same day with $0 down, differs from behavior otherwise known of Oswald
• The customer at the Downtown Lincoln was shorter than Oswald's 5'9". This is not only multiply attested from estimates of the weaker form subject to ca. 1"-2" margin of error in subjective witness memories of height estimates consistently below 5"9", but from a very strong form of witness memory: a witness talking face to face with a person when standing and remembering looking up or down at the face (taller or shorter than their own known height). The shorter height of the customer according to the witnesses does however match the height of Curtis Craford, the mob-connected Carousel Club handyman indicated independently to have been not only mistakenly identified as Oswald but to have impersonated Oswald in a number of other instances.
• A particularly compelling physical description detail from sales manager Pizzo: he testified the customer was not Oswald when shown photos because of a distinctive hairline feature detail--a weak but definite small widow's peak--not in photos of Oswald but in exact agreement with the hairline of photos of Curtis Craford.

What puzzled me however was trying to understand motive: why? The customer appears to have behaved in a way designed to create the appearance of an attempt to purchase a car which would not likely come about in fact. When taken on a test drive he drives recklessly at high speed, antagonizing the salesman. This "Oswald" demands to buy the car that day with $0 down and a promise to pay cash in full in three weeks (from Sat Nov 2). He is angered at the nerve of an auto dealership not to let someone who walks in off the street with no credit rating buy a new car with $0 down. He says in anger that he may need to return to Russia where there is not this kind of nonsense (paraphrased). This is not reasonable behavior. But why? I believe the answer to "why" is (this has been suggested by others):

• A promise of a huge sum of money "in three weeks"--a promise to have enough money to pay for the new car in cash in full, according to Bogard--corresponds to the time of the planned assassination attempt on JFK. This created witnesses who would serve, post-assassination, as incrimination of Oswald in that assassination--witnesses who would testify that prior to the assassination Oswald expected to come into a huge sum of money at the time of the assassination. This would establish as facts post-assassination--according to testimony from truthful witnesses--that there was premeditation and culpability on the part of the patsy (Oswald) and that there was a conspiracy in which Oswald was involved which assassinated JFK--created on the basis of deception not truth.

That the would-be customer claiming to be Oswald was not Lee Harvey Oswald can fairly convincingly be shown. Going beyond that, a striking plausibility in match in physical description can be shown with Curtis Craford, known to have been mistakenly identified as Oswald in a number of instances and suggested to have intentionally impersonated Oswald in several instances. I will develop these points in posts to follow.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Downtown Lincoln-Mercury customer--height

In 1963 24-year old Lee Harvey Oswald was 5'9". In 1963 22-year old Curtis Craford has only one known record of height at the time and that is in an FBI physical description given as 5'8". The FBI height and weight seems however to be a judgment not obtained from a true measurement. In later years (when persons do tend to lose height with age) Peter Whitmey tells of Craford being definitely shorter than his own 5'8-1/2". From a number of physical descriptions which are argued to be of Craford instead of Oswald (in mistaken identifications or impersonations) the true height of Curtis Craford at the time may have been perhaps actually 5'7" or 5'7-1/2", slightly less than the FBI's 5'8". (If it could be shown likely that Craford's FBI height was measured not a human judgment, this would affect this point; I am assuming it was a human judgment of an experienced agent which can be relied upon to be accurate within a small margin of error, perhaps 3/4" margin of error.

At the Downtown Lincoln-Mercury, three salesmen witnesses gave physical descriptions of the Oswald-identifying customer. Not one estimated a height taller than 5'9" and all three indicated memory that the man seemed shorter than 5'9".

Albert Bogard-- WC testimony

• Bogard: "About medium build, I would say" [only height reference I could find from this witness]

Frank Pizzo-- (looking at a photo of 5'9", 24-yr. old Oswald in New Orleans) (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=44#relPageId=355)

• Pizzo: "he [Oswald in photo] seems older here"
• Pizzo: "he [customer] was a little short guy, the way I figure"
• Jenner: "[Oswald in photo] seems somewhat taller than the man you recall as having seen at the door of your office prior to November 22, 1963; is that correct, sir?" Pizzo: "That's correct--about 5 feet 8 inches, something like that, what I recall--or maybe 5 feet 8-1/2 inches. Bogard is pretty tall and it seemed like the fellow was a lot shorter than he was."
• Pizzo: "Between 5 feet 7 inches and 5 foot 8-1/2 inches with sort of a round forehead and that V shape [small widow's peak] is the thing that I remember the most."

Eugene Wilson-- FBI interview 9/6/64 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=721)

• "Wilson described this customer as a white male, between 26 and 30 years old, weighing about 135 pounds, and was only about five feet tall. Wilson said that he is five feet eight inches tall, and he definitely recalled that the customer was much shorter than he, Wilson, because he looked down, when talking to the customer."

There seems to be a discrepancy between Pizzo's detailed description of the customer whom Pizzo, despite saying the face apart from the hairline did look like that of Oswald's, refused to identify as the same man as Oswald in the photos, in part based on Pizzo remembering the customer as having been between 0.5 to 2 inches shorter than Oswald's height (5'9")--a little, but not a lot, shorter than Oswald--and the FBI report of Eugene Wilson (he was not called to testify by the WC) who was reported as saying the customer was significantly shorter than both Pizzo's memory of the customer and Oswald. Bogard's "about medium build" agrees with Pizzo but does not agree with the estimate attributed to Wilson. But here is a report that, according to Eugene Wilson, the FBI interview report had misrepresented what he told them, that he had told them 5'6" not 5'0".

• Sheldon Inkol: "If you check Appendix VII of my 'Downtown Lincoln-Mercury' paper, you'll see that Wilson was claiming by 1969 that he told the FBI Oswald was 5'6", not five feet tall. Considering that such diverse sources as Mary Ferrell and Jack Lawrence both describe Wilson as being an honest man, it seems possible that the FBI did distort his words." (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48700#relPageId=31&search=Inkol_eugene wilson lawrence)

The witness testimonies of both Pizzo and Wilson otherwise (apart from the detail of the 5'0" height estimate attributed in the FBI interview to Wilson) read as highly credible witnesses. Not one of these witness testimonies had the customer as tall as Oswald, 5'9". Great weight must be attached to Wilson specifically remembering looking down at the customer meaning less tall than Wilson's 5'8". Whereas witness height estimates in absolute number of inches can err by a little, this relative height memory that the customer was less tall than the witness's own 5'8" is strong testimony. If the customer were Oswald, Wilson would have looked up at him. Wilson remembered looking down.

Concluson: The height of this customer is not compatible with the customer having been Oswald who was 5'9", even though the customer represented himself as Oswald. The height of this customer is however compatible with Curtis Craford.

[Greg Doudna]

Downtown Lincoln-Mercury: the customer's hairline 

Below, top first row of two photos are Pizzo Exhibits 453-A and 453-C. Both show Oswald. In 453-A Oswald is the left of two figures with white shirt and tie.

Below those are photos of Curtis Craford, aka Larry Crafard, from WC exhibits.

Below that is Warren Commission testimony of Frank Pizzo, assistant sales manager of Downtown Lincoln-Mercury,  who witnessed the customer who identified himself as Oswald. In his testimony Pizzo refuses to identity the customer he saw as Oswald in the photos at top. Pizzo cites several reasons but above all a distinctive memory of the man's hairline that he saw. Readers can work through the testimony below and judge for themselves if, unknown to Pizzo, he was describing a hairline and other features identical to those of Curtis Craford.  

 

 

 

From the Warren Commission transcript of testimony of Frank Pizzo

(An instrument is marked by the reporter as Pizzo Exhibit 453-A, for identification.)

Mr. Jenner. Showing you that exhibit, do you see any person depicted on that exhibit that resembles or is the prospective customer that was brought to your office door by Mr. Bogard o[n] the day you have testified about?

Mr. Pizzo. One of these two men seems like it. This one--it seems like it because his nose is too big--one of these two here.

Mr. Jenner. Using this green marker, will you put an "X" on the two men?

Mr. Pizzo. I'm not positive.

Mr. Jenner. Of course you are not positive.

Mr. Pizzo. Do you want me to put it right here?

Mr. Jenner. Let's pick out the two that most closely resemble the man of which you speak?

Mr. Pizzo. [Witness at this point marked instrument referred to,]

Mr. Jenner. Now which of those two that you marked with the little green mark most closely resembles the man you saw?

Mr. Pizzo. Right here--but he seems older here--he was a little short guy, the way I figure.

Mr. Jenner. Put an "X" above him. (The witness has put a cross--a horizontal cross line, through the other line as indicating the man who appears most like the person he saw.) Your feeling is that the man you have indicated with an "X" seems somewhat taller than the man you recall as having seen at the door of your offce prior to November 22, 1963; is that correct, sir?

Mr. Pizzo. That's correct--about 5 feet 8 inches, something like that, what I recall--or maybe 5 feet 8-1/2 inches. Bogard is pretty tall and it seemed like the fellow was a lot shorter than he was.

Mr. Jenner. And that's what led you to put the marker over the head of the man on the extreme right shown in that picture, Pizzo Exhibit 453-A? 

Mr. Pizzo. Yes--that's right--it's a downhill photo.

Mr. Jenner. I have one that's taken more at a level. We will mark it Pizzo Exhibit 453-B.

(Instrument referred to marked by the reporter as Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B, for identification.)

Mr. Jenner. Exhibiting that photograph, does there appear on it anybody who closely resembles the person you recall as having been at the door of your office on the occasion you have described, and if there is, put a mark on it.

Mr. Pizzo. Gosh, the man I saw--I want you to know--didn't have that much hair, nor did he have as much hair as those boys in this picture.

Mr. Jenner. The man you saw did not have as much hair as is shown on Pizzo Commission Exhibit 453-A, which you have marked with a cross?

Mr. Pizzo. That's right, nor as this picture right here--right there.

Mr. Jenner. Or the man on Pizzo Exhibit 453-B--appears to have more hair than the man you saw at the door of your office?

Mr. Pizzo. That's right.

Mr. Jenner. And the man depicted on Commission Exhibits Nos. 453 and 451 also, in each instance, has more hair than the man you saw at the door of your office?

Mr. Pizzo. Yes.

Mr. Jenner. What about the man over whose head you placed a cross on Pizzo Exhibit 453-A, that is, in respect to the amount of hair?

Mr. Pizzo. This is more or less the hairline.

Mr. Jenner. Now, the witness is pointing to the man over where there is a single vertical stripe, over his head--green, and has dark glasses on. It is his hairline to which you have now adverted?

Mr. Pizzo. Yes.

Mr. Jenner. Now, the other man has the cross over his head--you wanted to say something about that?

Mr. Pizzo. You said it exactly--that resembles--the face resembles him more than the hairline--it's sort of a "V" hairline.

Mr. Jenner. So your problem has been that the hairline and the man with the single stripe above his head more resembles him than the man you saw at the door of your office, but the physiognomy or the facial features of the man over whose head you have placed the cross more resembles the man you saw?

Mr. Pizzo. Yes. I had just wondered if the pictures that I have seen of Oswald might have--

Mr. Jenner. Might have colored your judgment now?

Mr. Pizzo. Yes.

Mr. Jenner. It's always possible, you know.

Mr. Pizzo. But that hairline is a thing--that's the thing that hit me first when I saw his picture on television.

Mr. Jenner. When you saw Oswald's picture on television?

Mr. Pizzo. Yes; and in the paper. It was the hairline and the physical features of it--a clean face with the high forehead and the "V" shaped hairline, and it's easy to remember that because of the T-shirt, the bare look he had because of the tight T-shirt.

Mr. Jenner. Mr. Davis has come in and he is representing the attorney general's office of the State of Texas. This is Mr. Robert Davis. They are conducting a court of inquiry on this subject.

Mr. Pizzo. I see, sir.

Mr. Jenner. Mr. Davis, the witness has just emphasized the thing he recalls most about the appearance or physiognomy of the man he saw at the door of his office a week or 10 days prior to November 22 when one of the employees he was supervising, Mr. Bogard, brought a prospective customer who seemed to be interested in a Comet Caliente, Mr. Pizzo was then the general sales manager of McAllister Downtown Lincoln-Mercury.

Mr. Pizzo. I was assistant sales manager.

Mr. Jenner. You are now the sales manager?

Mr. Pizz. I--of Hamilton Chrysler.

Mr. Jenner. I have shown him some photographs. He was impressed, he said that the man he now recalls having seen on the occasion--he was impressed particularly with his hairline.

Mr. Pizzo. That's right.

Mr. Jenner. And that the hairline of the man indicated on Pizzo Exhibit 453-A, over whose head he has put the green vertical stripe, has the hairline, but the man over whose head he has placed the cross has more of the facial likeness. The person or persons depicted on Commission Exhibits Nos. 453 and 451, he says have a resemblance, but it is in his opinion not the man, and in any event the man on those two exhibits has more hair and does not have the particular hairline that impressed you on this occasion?

Mr. Pizzo. That's right. 

Mr. Jenner. Am I fairly stating your testimony?

Mr. Pizzo. That's right.

Mr. Jenner. I am just trying to summarize for Mr. Davis.

Mr. Pizzo. Thank you.

Mr. Jenner. I now show you a document we will mark as Pizzo Exhibit 453-C.

(The instrument referred to was marked by the reporter as Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C, for identification.)

Mr. Jenner. This is a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald that I'm about to show you and before I show it to you, may I say that the important thing to us--it is necessary for us to have your very best judgment, and if this isn't the person, we want to know it and to carry yourself back as best you can to that particular occasion when you saw this man at the door of your office, and if this isn't the man, tell us, and if it is--tell us, one way or the other.

Mr. Pizzo. All right. That I will do. [Examining instrument referred to.]

Mr. Jenner. The greatest service you can give to us and to the country and to yourself is to just be as fair as you possibly can.

Mr. Pizzo. He certainly don't have the hairline I was describing--it isn't the hairline I was describing.

Mr. Jenner. This was taken the afternoon of November 22 in the Dallas City Police showup.

(Discussion off the record.)

(Discussion between Counsel Jenner and Counsel Davis and the witness, Mr. Pizzo, off the record.)

Mr. Jenner. Back on the record. You recall him as being more in the neighborhood of what--5 feet 8 inches, 5 feet 7 inches, more or less, or more or less?

Mr. Pizzo. Between 5 feet 7 inches and 5 foot 8-1/2 inches with sort of a round forehead and that V shape is the thing that I remember the most.

Mr. Jenner. A widow's peak?

Mr. Pizzo. Yes; but very weak.

Mr. Jenner. Very weak.

Mr. Pizzo. Very weak--not the bushy type that I see in the picture. Well, if I'm not sure--then--I have to say that he is not the one--if you want the absolute statement.

Mr. Jenner. I just want your best judgment--I don't want you to say he isn't because you feel you are compelled to state the ultimate. It is better for me to have your rumination about it, as you have been giving us--as to what you looked for, or didn't find and what you did look for in the photographs--what you did find and what you didn't find. Now you don't find the hairline?

Mr. Pizzo. No; I don't. From that picture I don't. 

Mr. Jenner. Yes; from any of the three pictures, except the one with the man with the stripe over his head?

Mr. Pizzo. That's right--he has the sort of a hairline that I recollect.

Mr. Jenner. That's the man with the one stripe over his head?

Mr. Pizzo. I'll have to take a look again--this is the face--it resembles.

Mr. Jenner. The witness is now pointing to the man that has the cross over it.

Mr. Pizzo. This is the hariline that I remember.

Mr. Jenner. That is the man on the extreme right with the dark glasses, havng a single vertical stripe above his head?

Mr. Pizzo. Right.

Mr. Jenner. And that picture of Mr. Oswald that I showed the witness, Pizzo Exhibit 453-C, in that picture he does not have the hairline; is that correct?

Mr. Pizzo. That's correct.

Mr. Jenner. What about this facial expression--features?

Mr. Pizzo. There's resemblance there. May I say something?

Mr. Jenner. Surely.

Mr. Pizzo. All the time that I have been thinking about it--because the FBI did tell me that they would call me sometime later and would I appear, and I said--yes, I would. I thought about it and the thing that stuck in my mind was always that hairline--the kind of balding right here--the smooth line.

Mr. Jenner. Above each temple?

Mrs. Pizzo. And that face resembles. Now, I'll tell you, if he has--I've never seen the man in person, but if he has a small mouth it would fit about the description that I would give. I couldn't say absolutely sure that this was the man that was standing in front of my door.

Mr. Jenner. And the witness is now referring to Pizzo Exhibit 453-C. I offer Pizzo Exhibits 453-Al 453-B, and 453-C in evidence.

[Greg Doudna]

Downtown Lincoln-Mercury, Sat Nov 2, 1963

The Warren Commission and most references to this incident date it to Nov 9 based on salesman Bogard's memory that that was the date. Very little attention has been given to a correction in that date to Nov 2 given by salesman Eugene Wilson reported in a Dallas Morning News article of 5/8/77 (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/W Disk/Wilson Eugene/Item 01.pdf). But the account of Eugene Wilson is very convincing and appears independently vindicated according to historic rain precipitation data for the Dallas area. The distortion on this point in the way his comments were reported in his FBI interview report, when he later saw it, makes more plausible that that interview report's claim that he gave the height of the "Oswald" individual as 5'0" (which makes no sense) was not what he said, but supports his later claim that he told the FBI 5'6" (which is plausible as a subjective estimate, compared to the other salesmen's estimates).

Dallas area precipitation data for November 1963

On the weather, it is (surprisingly) difficult to find online data for precipitation in Dallas in days of Nov 1963, but to save others time here is a place to access that data: go to this NOAA site (National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): https://nowdata.rcc-acis.org/fwd/, and fill in the fields as follows: Location: Dallas area [3rd from top]. Product: Calendar day summaries. Optons: Year range 1963-1963. Variable: precipitation. summary: mean (or anything). View: click "Go" button. That will turn up a table of measured precipitation (unofficial data, from some unnamed source in the Dallas area) for all days in 1963 including November. The letter "T" which occasionally appears instead of a number stands for "Trace", <0.01 inch precipitation measuring threshhold.

A detail in the Downtown Lincoln-Mercury episode is that Bogard told of the customer driving in Bogard's view recklessly, taking curves at high speed which Bogard considered dangerous due to the roads being slick from recent rain. Except for T for Trace on Nov 8 and 12, there is 0 precipitation reported for all days between Nov 3 and Nov 18. This argues that Bogard was indeed mistaken on the Sat Nov 9 date as Wilson said. However for Wilson's Nov 2 date the data is also puzzling in that this is what the data shows:

• Fri Nov 1, 0.23 inches
• Sat Nov 2, 0.00 inches
• Sun Nov 3, 0.04 inches

No precipitation is reported for Sat Nov 2, meaning either Wilson's Sat Nov 2 is also in error, the rain on Fri Nov 1 fell late at night and the highway was still damp on Sat Nov 2 at the time the test drive occurred, or, third possibility and probably the correct explanation: "Dallas Area, TX" is a wide area within which rain can fall in some places and not in others. The location of the source of this "Dallas Area" historic weather data was some place that did not receive rain even though there was rain on the Stemmons Freeway a mile north or south of the triple underpass at Dealey Plaza. That is rendered plausible in that there is rain happening those days on either side of Nov 2 at the location of the source-collector of the data, which is not the case for any other time of the month until Nov 18 and later, too late for the Downtown Lincoln-Mercury episode. The important point being it is raining the Fri-Sun weekend in Dallas picked up by that data-collecting source, in a way that is not the case for any other weekend in agreement with the Downtown Lincoln-Mercury episode.

Eugene Wilson says he knew it was Nov 2 because

"after Oswald [sic] drove the car, Wilson used the same vehicle later than day to drive his wife and friends home after a meeting of the Lone Star Bulldog Club in Fort Worth. Wilson said he has ribbons won by his dogs at a Dallas show the next day to pinpoint the Nov. 2 date (. . .) When the FBI interviewed Wilson only two weeks before the Warren Report was released in September, 1964, he said he tried to tell the agents that the incident occurred Nov. 2, but they were already locked on Nov. 9. The agent's report states Wilson merely said the event occurred 'on some day about the first part of November, 1963, believed to be a Saturday, but exact date not recalled.' (. . .) Wilson said he spoke up again because 'I just want to get the record straight. It kind of bugs you whenever you know something that is historical to a certain extent,' he said. 'And the dates you like to get correct.''

Mistaken claim that the customer took the test drive on the presidential parade route

That appears to be an early urban legend originating in the immediate days following Nov 22. Bogard told in his Warren Commission testimony the route taken: it was north on Stemmons Freeway, then off at an exit and reenter going south, then south for a distance until an exit, then turn around and back north to the triple underpass area and return to the dealership--no report of going into Dealey Plaza or downtown city streets.

Further comments--low-tech impersonation incriminating an innocent patsy in a mob hit?

That the customer represented himself as Lee Harvey Oswald seems clear. Bogard knew the name was "Oswald" and had written it down, and the day of the assassination pulled out the card with that name written on it which other salesmen saw, though the card then was thrown away and did not survive. The wife of a fellow salesman recognized the name "Oswald" from seeing it written on a piece of paper of her husband, which she thought was preceded by two initials--the name had been given to him by Bogard in case the customer returned and Bogard was not there. Bogard said the man gave his first name as "Lee". Polygraph examination found no sign of deception in Bogard's statements. When Eugene Wilson told the customer he could not buy the car unless he could pay $200-$300 down on it, the customer spoke of going back to Russia. This argues against that it was some unrelated person with a last name Oswald by coincidence.

The issue then is was this customer Lee Harvey Oswald or not. If not, then it is looking like an impersonation, which sounds like an extreme conclusion except that it falls into a pattern of several other incidents in the runup to the assassination apparently specifically targeting Oswald for incrimination in an assassination attempt yet to happen, with a case to be made that the individual doing the impersonating was a mob-connected figure associated with Jack Ruby.  

The driving skill of the customer regarded by Bogard as reckless at high speed--the opposite of cautious driving of an inexperienced driver--does not sound like Oswald according to those who knew him. I wondered earlier if Oswald's very inexperience at driving combined with bravado could produce what Bogard experienced as a high-speed reckless passenger experience, but that does not sound right. The way the customer drove the test car that day according to Bogard says that driver simply was an experienced and skilled driver whether or not he was Oswald, and the very skill of that driver may be an argument that it was not Oswald.

Curtis Craford, although he did not have a car and may not have had a driver's license at the time he was in Dallas, did have a motorcycle operator's license and there is no information concerning a lack of ability or experience in driving on his part.

The customer seems to have been shorter than Oswald's 5'9", in agreement with Craford's ca. 5'7"-5'8". 

While it is true that Oswald was talking of wanting to buy a car in this time period and was reported to have checked with an insurance agent across from his rooming house ... what is questionable is the idea that Oswald would be coming into a huge sum of money and thinking of buying a new car. Does buying a new car make sense in terms of what is known of Oswald? Would not everything known of Oswald, poor and frugal, predict that if and when he did shop for a first car it would be used? 

As an impersonation intending to incriminate a future accused assassin of Kennedy, however, none of that would matter. The impersonation would work like this: the objective would be to succeed in making a deal to pay cash and take future delivery of a new car around the time of the assassination. The customer would know the dealership would not let him drive away in a new car that day with $0 down. The objective would be to get the dealership to agree to hold the car for him until he returned to pay for it and take possession at that time--about two or three weeks or so later around the time of the assassination. There would be something in writing of this deal and there would be witnesses at the dealership to the deal. Combine that with a successful assassination three weeks later, a silenced Oswald immediately after, and evidence of the planned pickup of a new car for cash comes to light . . . a simple mechanism in a Mob hit to set up blame on an innocent person?

By this interpretation this would explain why the customer did not come with $200 or $300 for the down payment, because the point was not about taking possession of the car. It was to set up Oswald by making a deal for a car to be held for him to pick up around the time of the assassination after a promise to pay for it with a newfound and unexplained huge amount of anticipated cash. As it turned out the attempt to make this deal was not successful. The customer--the mob-aligned impersonator of Oswald--did not achieve that objective. Yet that too was still incriminating to Oswald if these dealership witnesses talked after the assassination, as happened. But the original idea would have been a deal for future pickup of the car. As it turned out the dealership refused, telling him no deal could be made without a down payment.

If there were impersonations for the purpose of incriminating Oswald in an assassination attempt which had not yet happened, did it involve false documents? There is no evidence of such, and therefore it is probably better understood as low-tech rather than high-tech impersonation--since there is no testimony from witnesses involved that false documents were produced. In none of the instances of apparent impersonation did the impersonator leave behind even handwriting. At the Hilton Hotel the impersonator did fill out an application, but grabbed it back and tore it up and put the pieces of the torn paper in his pocket as he left (apparently), leaving no evidence behind of handwriting. At the Downtown Lincoln-Mercury: "Bogard stated that the individual he believes to have been Lee Harvey Oswald did not show him any identification whatsoever which would have contained the name of Oswald thereon such as a driver's license, Social Security card, et cetera." (FBI interview, 9/7/64, WC Exhibit 3079). 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Southland Hotel Garage, Commerce St., job applicant, early or mid-Nov 1963 (exact date uncertain)

The documents concerning this can be seen starting at https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10108#relPageId=5. A job applicant who gave his name as Oswald turns up at that location approximately 7:30 am but not earlier than 7:30 am, seeking employment and asking about the view from the top of the building.

"[Hubert Anderson Morrow] said he works there from 7:30 AM to 6:00 AM daily. Morrow advised that shortly after Lee Harvey Oswald was allegedly killed by Jack Ruby, he observed a photograph of Oswald in the paper and on television and recalled that a person who strongly resembled Oswald, and whom he believed to be identical, came to the Southland Hotel Garage early one morning about two weeks before the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in answer to an ad for help to work at the garage. He said he wrote the name of this man down on a pad of paper and put it down, "Lee Harvey Osburn", and the individual said, "No, my name is Oswald". He said he did not keep the paper and it had been thrown away with the trash. He said that he recalled ths man asked him how tall the building was and if it had a good view of Dallas and he recalled that this man had a "Dallas Morning News" newspaper under his arm, was dressed in a football-type sweatshirt and blue jeans. He said this man left the name which he recalled to be Oswald, but no address, and waited around about 45 minutes or one hour and departed, about 7:30 or 7:50 AM, but was not interviewed." (FBI interview, 1/25/64)

"Mr. Morrow stated that approximately six or seven days prior to the assassination of the President of the United States John Fitzgerald Kennedy subject came to the parking lot asking for a job (. . .) dressed in a dirty white T shirt and blue jeans" (DPD interview, 1/23/64)

That the individual represented himself as Oswald by name is clear enough from the witness account. A fellow employee informed the DPD as early as Dec 1, 1963, of Morrow's story which was the fellow employee understood to have occurred "two or three weeks" prior to the assassination. Therefore this is not a case of mistaken identification but either it was Oswald or it was the impersonator of the other incidents, in this case following the same pattern of the applicant to the Hilton and Adolphus hotels, all high-rise buildings located on possible parade route streets downtown at a time when the exact parade route through downtown was not know.

Argument that this person was not Oswald:

• It makes little sense that Oswald would be interested in applying for that job. He already was in one low-paying, deadend job not in his desired field of printing or graphics or electronics work. It is not known what the pay was at the Southland Hotel Garage but it is difficult to imagine this job paid much more, or would be any improvement in terms of Oswald's job objectives, to what he had at the Texas School Book Depository. All logic says Oswald took the TSBD job because he needed something immediately but by any rational logic would seek to obtain a better job, one in his desired field, with opportunity for advancement. Therefore it makes no sense.
• The person was dressed in blue jeans. No witness is known to report ever having seen Oswald wear blue jeans, although there is a record of a "pair of blue jeans" found among Oswald's possessions (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9945#relPageId=140). Fellow employees at the TSBD said Oswald consistently wore grey work pants, not blue jeans, to work.
• The logistics of timing makes it questionable that Oswald could have made this job inquiry, waited 45-60 minutes according to Morrow for a boss to show up, and then gotten to work on time at the TSBD by 8 am (dressed in grey pants). The Southland Hotel was about 0.6 miles from the TSBD. According to Morrow he started work at 7:30 am. (Although it is puzzling that according to the FBI report Morrow would say the man left between 7:30 and 7:50 some 45-60 minutes after Morrow spoke to him--a mistake in the FBI agent writing the report for when Morrow said the man first arrived?)
• The reference in Morrow's DPD interview to the man wearing a "dirty" T-shirt is inconsistent with reports fairly consistently that Oswald was a clean person who wore clean clothes.

Against these factors the attempt to get job placement in a tall downtown building on a possible route the presidential parade could take and the grounds for supposing the identical genre of attempt was made in at least two other cases by an individual falsely representing himself as Oswald, becomes the case for this one as a further possible case of an impersonation of Oswald, in a way that in retrospect looks incriminating of Oswald (the interest in the view from the tall building on the parade route). 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

On 2/18/2022 at 7:19 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Denny Zartmanthe inability of the mob to control the autopsy or the government's response to the assassination is irrelevant to the question of was the mob was behind the assassination. The question is a form of disinformation or misdirection.  

The mob had plenty of experience with public killings that are not traceable back to the actual players. They did not need to rely on the government becoming an accessory to the crime to pull off the assassination. Marcello (or Trafficante) knew how to carry out a murder without it leading back to them. They may have suspected that Hoover would not pursue them for a variety of reasons or the government not wanting to start digging in a direction that could expose its soliciting mafia to to kill Castro.   But they were not relying on the government to go along in their planning to kill the president. 

Lawrence, your first paragraph sounds right, concerning logical non sequitur, understanding "behind" the assassination to mean carrying out the assassination. Going to the second paragraph however, I wonder, is a mob going-it-alone theory plausible? Would one or two or three high-level mob figures do a hit of a sitting president without some form of understanding, an exchange of favors so to speak, with the successor administration? And that very understanding would be the strongest reason why that administration would not go after them for prosecution, because of what could risk coming out if so, even if there were layers of deniability already built in?

A lone-mobster theory sounds almost as questionable as a lone-nut theory. In light of known CIA/mob cooperation in other areas happening at that same time, could you say what factors persuade you for or against a notion that there was approval, a favor agreed to, a quid pro quo, an understanding, in the background of the JFK assassination if it was done by say Marcello, as opposed to a mobster deciding on his own to kill a popular president without a quid pro quo from somewhere inside the government? What is realism in how the Mob operates in such matters? Thanks for your comment.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Greg Doudna