Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Framing and Murder of Lee Harvey Oswald


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

An extremely thorough, thought provoking and important summary.

After reading this well documented essay, how can anyone rationally conclude anything but your finding that Oswald was totally railroaded by the DPD?

And under any circumstances but this one, a family of a criminal "suspect" who is murdered while in the "protective" custody of the police ( and even right inside their own building) before a trial should have been able to sue the heck out of such an entity as the murder was the result of their extreme negligence in not only publicly announcing the time and place of Oswald's transfer but also the failure to screen and block a killer from entering a supposed "secure" DPD building basement transfer area.

Oswald was most probably "the most threatened criminal suspect in American history" and little old sleazy strip joint owner Jack Ruby claimed he just "walked right past" street entrance police guards and then down a ramp inside the DPD building basement, right as and right next to Oswald as he was paraded through.

Now THAT is "negligence beyond negligence" in Oswald's case. Even more outrageously so because of the mind blowing amount of violent threats against Oswald  ( thousands! ) that the DPD had been notified of that entire weekend.

And also the ignoring of countless warnings and advice from their own ranks pleading with the highest Oswald security authorities to move Oswald at night and without public notice giving the exact time and place of his movement.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

An extremely thorough, thought provoking and important summary.

After reading this well documented essay, how can anyone rationally conclude anything but your finding that Oswald was totally railroaded by the DPD.

And under any circumstances but this one, a family of a criminal "suspect" who is murdered while in the "protective" custody of the police ( and even right inside their own building) before a trial should have been able to sue the heck out of such an entity as the murder was the result of their extreme negligence in not only publicly announcing the time and place of Oswald's transfer but also the failure to screen and block a killer from entering a supposed "secure" DPD building basement transfer area.

Oswald was most probably "the most threatened criminal suspect in American history" and little old sleazy strip joint owner Jack Ruby claimed he just "walked right past" street entrance police guards and then down a ramp inside the DPD building basement, right as and right next to Oswald himself?

Now THAT is "negligence beyond negligence" in Oswald's case. Even more outrageously so because of the mind blowing amount of violent threats that the DPD had been notified of that entire weekend.

And also the ignoring of countless warnings and advice from their own ranks pleading with the highest Oswald security authorities to move Oswald at night and without public notice given to the exact time and place of his movement.

Thank you, Joe and yes you make some good points about the threats they received on Oswald's life and the lack of security in spite of those threats.

Common sense tells us that if they were that worried about losing Oswald, there wouldn't have been anyone in that basement.

Just as there shouldn't have been anyone in the hallways as they were transferring him between rooms.

How could they be sure someone posing as a reporter or a police officer wasn't going to kill him ?

There should have been a conference room set up where the press would receive periodical updates from police.

No, IMO, they wanted him dead.

One of the points I make in that essay, and I feel is an important one, and that is that they arraigned Oswald WITHOUT any evidence against him for killing the President. I believe that came about because Ruby was supposed to kill Oswald on Friday night, at the "Midnight Press Conference", before Oswald was arraigned. But Ruby failed to do that, so they had no choice but to arraign Oswald without evidence.

Ruby confirmed that he planned to kill Oswald Friday night but he couldn't get close enough and was afraid that he'd hit a police officer.

So Sunday morning, they allowed Ruby into the building, waited for him to get in position and when he was, gave the "all clear" to move Oswald. This time, they made sure Ruby could get to him point blank and shoot him without hitting an officer.

At least, that's the way i see it.

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Thank you, Joe and yes you make some good points about the threats they received on Oswald's life and the lack of security in spite of those threats.

Common sense tells us that if they were that worried about losing Oswald, there wouldn't have been anyone in that basement.

Just as there shouldn't have been anyone in the hallways as they were transferring him between rooms.

How could they be sure someone posing as a reporter or a police officer wasn't going to kill him ?

There should have been a conference room set up where the press would receive periodical updates from police.

No, IMO, they wanted him dead.

One of the points I make in that essay, and I feel is an important one, and that is that they arraigned Oswald WITHOUT any evidence against him for killing the President. I believe that came about because Ruby was supposed to kill Oswald on Friday night, at the "Midnight Press Conference", before Oswald was arraigned. But Ruby failed to do that, so they had no choice but to arraign Oswald without evidence.

Ruby confirmed that he planned to kill Oswald Friday night but he couldn't get close enough and was afraid that he'd hit a police officer.

So Sunday morning, they allowed Ruby into the building, waited for him to get in position and when he was, gave the "all clear" to move Oswald. This time, they made sure Ruby could get to him point blank and shoot him without hitting an officer.

At least, that's the way i see it.

Agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Chapter One of my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE: I watched Oswald being hauled through a corridor of the Dallas police headquarters on live television that Friday night at 7:55 (Central Standard Time), telling the national audience, “I haven’t killed anybody!” And I heard him proclaim as he was being dragged through the hall, “I’m just a patsy!” I watched the alleged assassin’s riveting, but all too brief, midnight press conference in which he denied involvement in the killing of the President. He denied even knowing he had been charged of that crime, a claim that at the time seemed almost incomprehensible. My strong belief in Oswald’s innocence from the beginning was reinforced by what I saw and heard while watching that press conference. Referring to his 7:10 arraignment on Friday evening in Captain Will Fritz’s office for the charge of murdering Officer Tippit, shortly after Fritz had signed that complaint, Oswald told the reporters at his press conference,

 

Well, I was, uh, questioned by a judge [David L. Johnston, a justice of the peace]. However, I, uh, protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation, uh, during that, uh, that, uh, very short and sweet hearing. Uh, I really don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of, uh, of, uh, murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that, and I do request, uh, someone to come forward, uh, to give me, uh, legal assistance.

 

When asked, “Did you kill the President?,” the accused man replied,

 

No. I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall [voice quavering], uh, axed [sic] me that question.

 

When Oswald said he had not been charged with the assassination, an offscreen reporter responded insistently, seemingly in anger, as if he were lying, “You have been charged. You have been charged.” Oswald looked confused, then angry, as he was quickly led out of the room. When a reporter asked how he had received his black eye, he replied, leaning into the microphone, “A policeman hit me.”

Oswald was telling the truth: he was not aware at that point that charges had been filed against him in the assassination. The Warren Report states, “The formal charge against Oswald for the assassination of President Kennedy was lodged shortly after 1:30 a.m. on Saturday, November 23” (Captain Fritz signed the complaint at 11:26 p.m.). The Dallas Police Department would later claim Oswald was arraigned before Judge Johnston later that morning, at 1:35, for Kennedy’s murder. However, a little-noticed November 25, 1963, FBI document (written the day after Oswald was murdered in the police headquarters) states that Oswald was never arraigned for the murder of the president, only for the murder of Tippit: “The following information was obtained by SA [Special Agent] JAMES P. HOSTY, JR., from the office of Captain WILL FRITZ, Dallas Police Department, on November 25, 1963: . . . No arraignment on the murder charges in connection with the death of President KENNEDY was held inasmuch as such arraignment was not necessary in view of the previous charges filed against OSWALD and for which he was arraigned.” Furthermore, reports Anthony Summers in his history of the assassination, “Officer J. B. Hicks was on duty in the relevant office until after 2:00 A.M. and is certain Oswald was not arraigned at 1:35.”

****

Detective Jim Leavelle also confirmed to me that Oswald was telling the truth

at the midnight press conference in saying he was not aware at that point

that charges had been filed against him in the assassination. -- JM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit but not for the murder of

Kennedy, though he was charged with both murders.

So, when Captain Fritz yelled to the press crowd on Saturday..."this case is cinched!"

was he referring to the murder of Tippit...or the murder of JFK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Gil Jesus, in the midst of some powerful commentary on the Dallas Police Department obstructing Oswald from getting a lawyer, there is alas this concerning Ruth Paine which, since no one else stands for Ruth Paine, the thankless task falls to me to do. You write,

"The question remains: did Ruth Paine actually TRY to make those calls on Oswald’s behalf ?

"I doubt it, because if she did, she would have kept Oswald informed of her progress."

Ruth Paine has consistently testified that she made one attempt to reach Abt for certain. She says she called and the phone just rang and rang. It is uncalled-for for you to reason that she was dishonest about that, citing as evidence that she had not got back to him. She got the request from Lee mid-PM Saturday. She tries to reach Abt and can get no answer. If she had not gotten back to Lee by Sunday evening, I would agree you have a point. But the logical thing to do would be to try Sunday morning and get back to Lee Sunday. But Lee was killed Sunday morning. How do you know Ruth would not have gotten back to Lee? She could not after Sunday morning because he was dead. Do you believe a conclusion that Ruth made no calls and willfully intended never to call and never to get back to Oswald about it, against her testimony that she did make an attempt, a valid conclusion to draw from the fact cited?  And criticizing Ruth for not getting back to Oswald on Sunday seems a bit harsh of a criticism given that he was dead that day? You write,

"John Abt told the Warren Commission that he and his wife had gone off for a weekend at their cabin in Connecticut and on Saturday, the press “began to call me up there” and that “these calls kept on all day Saturday and again Sunday morning”. ( 10 H 116 )

"How could all of these reporters reach Mr. Abt, but Mrs. Paine could not ?

"Even if she could not contact Abt, why didn’t Mrs. Paine, as a member of the Civil Liberties Union, contact that organization for help or at least contact her husband to do so ?

"Marguerite Oswald testified that on Friday, the 22nd, she was troubled by the attitude of Ruth Paine towards her son. Although Mrs. Paine said that she could get Lee a lawyer, she was doing nothing about it:

""I am worried because Lee hasn't an attorney. And I am talking about that, and Mrs. Paine said, 'Oh, don't worry about that. I am a member of the Civil Liberties Union, and Lee will have an attorney, I can assure you.' I said to myself 'but when?' Of course, I didn't want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a member of the Union, why didn't she see Lee had an attorney then? So I wasn't too happy about that." (1 H 146)"

The conversation with Marguerite occurred late Friday night. Why had not Ruth on her own taken responsibility for ensuring Lee had an attorney by Friday night? Marguerite's concern and desperation for her son is understandable, but Ruth had been hit with news of the assassination only hours earlier that afternoon, had had police arrive at her home and take her belongings, then she and Marina had been taken by police downtown to be interviewed and make her statement and support Marina. She never even saw Lee. Then they came home. Ruth was a single mom with two toddlers. Notwithstanding sympathy for Marguerite's desperation, is it reasonable to hold Ruth in this context personally responsible for the failure of the Dallas police and the judge at his arraignment to not have immediately provided Lee with a court-appointed attorney by Friday evening? 

You represent Ruth as doing nothing in response to Marguerite's concerns, as if she never contacted the ACLU after trying to reassure Marguerite, late Fri night, that the ACLU could help her son. You ask why Ruth did not "contact that organization for help or at least contact her husband to do so?"

She did, Gil Jesus. At least there is unrebutted testimony that she did. She told Michael of Marguerite's concern, and Michael called the ACLU the next morning responsive to that. This from Michael Paine's WC testimony:

Mr. DULLES. There were no conversations that took place that evening that are pertinent to our investigation so far as you know? 
Mr. PAINE. Quite soon I called the ACLU. There were reports, yes, I think at that time, that Friday night, Marguerite was saying he wasn't receiving counsel, and so I called the ACLU to see if there was anybody there checking to see if this was true, and apparently a delegation, this was Saturday morning, and apparently a delegation had been sent.  

Would you consider rewording your section on this, or in fairness add disclosure that there is unrebutted testimony saying the opposite of what you assert--that there is unrebutted testimony that Ruth did tell Michael and that Michael did contact ACLU.

You conclude:

"The truth was Ruth Paine had no intention of helping Oswald."

This language seems uncalled-for. It is belied by the fact that she told Michael of Marguerite's concern, and then Michael, on behalf of both of them, called ACLU making inquiry on Lee's behalf. Also, she agreed to call Abt for Lee and attempted to do so.  

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This quote from Oswald to the press on Friday night sure didn't sound like Oswald was demanding only one lawyer and no one else.

16 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Well, I was, uh, questioned by a judge [David L. Johnston, a justice of the peace]. However, I, uh, protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation, uh, during that, uh, that, uh, very short and sweet hearing. Uh, I really don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of, uh, of, uh, murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that, and I do request, uh, someone to come forward, uh, to give me, uh, legal assistance.

Also, again I ask...when Captain Will Fritz yelled out to the press "THIS CASE IS CINCHED!" was he referring to the Tippitt murder case...or the JFK one?

And did Fritz yell this before Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby?

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Joe, he did not know he was charged with the Kennedy case, right?

At the "Midnight Press Conference" Oswald had not yet stood before the judge and heard the charges against him for killing the President. So as far as he was concerned, he had not been charged with it.

The paperwork, however, had already been filled out charging him with the crime.

This is why he says, "I have not been charged" and a police officer responds, "you HAVE been charged".

The paperwork was completed but he had not yet formally been arraigned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he never was arraigned for the murder of Kennedy.

Both Leavelle and Wade indicated to me that Fritz

told them to make a case on Oswald for the Tippit

killing because the case on him for the Kennedy

killing was weak.

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...