A Problem with "Prayer Man"

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Jeremy Bojczuk

Thanks for your concise (and respectful) response that argues Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest. Although I take issue with some of the bullet points you include,  I'm not here to debate the question of who didn't kill the president, a.k.a. Oswald other than his role as the perfect "patsy".

You explain, persuasively, The problem is that a "peer reviewed report" cannot be made because the copies of the Darnell and Wiegman films that are in public circulation are insufficiently clear, being several generations removed from the originals, which prompts the question: why, when I have repeatedly laid out the complications of securing a final report on authenticity of the Lafitte datebook, are we met with semi-derision from many Kennedy assassination researchers — most recently Greg Parker himself?

The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

LS:  The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

To try to answer your question, begin with the fact that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The killers certainly used one or more trained assassins, not him.  He wasn't on the sixth floor.  He was somewhere else.  Even though the story they had prepared was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window.  So where was he?  Or better, if you were running the show what would you want to do with him?

The last thing you would want is for Oswald to figure out, or even sense, that he was being set up to take the rap.  He would run and the whole project probably would collapse.

So you do nothing with him.  You let him go through his day as usual.

You confiscate cameras, the media tells the public only what you tell them to say (classic example from Lifton--the next day a Dallas paper reports JFK died in the 6ht floor operating room at Parkland--which was the original plan before they changed it on the fly.   No one corrected the story for  the stenographers). You begin an intimidation of witnesses on a massive scale.  You quickly grab Oswald after the murder--you know where to find him--and ask for his alibi so you can begin destroying it. You claim you didn't record or take notes at Oswald's interrogation, and order anyone who did take notes to destroy them.  Hosty disobeys because he wants to write a book.  His notes end up at NARA, but it takes until 6years ago before anyone really focuses on them and Oswald's alibi. 

And most important you have a plan to kill Oswald quickly--before he can talk to a lawyer--so he can't defend himself. The original plan doesn't work so you have to bring in Ruby to do an emergency job.

Somethings go wrong of course.  What bad luck to have Oswald filmed on the steps around the time of the murder.  But you have NBC to protect you.

The killers conclude that all of this is preferable to avoid tipping off Oswald. They are right.

 

[Ron Bulman]

Another WAG here.  Oswald didn't know he was a patsy until it happened.  He disobeyed instructions on where to be when because he became suspicious or maybe a contact didn't show up?  Food for thought.

[Leslie Sharp]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

LS:  The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

To try to answer your question, begin with the fact that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The killers certainly used one or more trained assassins, not him.  He wasn't on the sixth floor.  He was somewhere else.  Even though the story they had prepared was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window.  So where was he?  Or better, if you were running the show what would you want to do with him?

The last thing you would want is for Oswald to figure out, or even sense, that he was being set up to take the rap.  He would run and the whole project probably would collapse.

So you do nothing with him.  You let him go through his day as usual.

You confiscate cameras, the media tells the public only what you tell them to say (classic example from Lifton--the next day a Dallas paper reports JFK died in the 6ht floor operating room at Parkland--which was the original plan before they changed it on the fly.   No one corrected the story for  the stenographers). You begin an intimidation of witnesses on a massive scale.  You quickly grab Oswald after the murder--you know where to find him--and ask for his alibi so you can begin destroying it. You claim you didn't record or take notes at Oswald's interrogation, and order anyone who did take notes to destroy them.  Hosty disobeys because he wants to write a book.  His notes end up at NARA, but it takes until 6years ago before anyone really focuses on them and Oswald's alibi. 

And most important you have a plan to kill Oswald quickly--before he can talk to a lawyer--so he can't defend himself. The original plan doesn't work so you have to bring in Ruby to do an emergency job.

Somethings go wrong of course.  What bad luck to have Oswald filmed on the steps around the time of the murder.  But you have NBC to protect you.

The killers conclude that all of this is preferable to avoid tipping off Oswald. They are right.

 

 

LS:  The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

To try to answer your question, begin with the fact that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The killers certainly used one or more trained assassins, not him.  He wasn't on the sixth floor.  He was somewhere else. 

Agree, so we factored in the question: would the strategy not have calibrated the possibility he would wander the building at lunchtime?  

Even though the story they had prepared was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window. 

Did the strategist determine that by the time shots were fired, chaos would ensue and no single individual — other than Oswald himself — could testify to his movements.

So where was he?  Or better, if you were running the show what would you want to do with him?

I wouldn't want him to be caught on film outside the building when the shots were fired.

The last thing you would want is for Oswald to figure out, or even sense, that he was being set up to take the rap.  He would run and the whole project probably would collapse.

Ergo, he had to know just enough to guarantee he would follow his daily pattern. "Just go about your business, we'll do the rest."

Here's where the hypothesis diverges from the two primary camps, one arguing Oswald was clueless, and the other insisting that he fired the shots. Lafitte leads us to conclude that Oswald was in some way cognizant he was being maneuvered: Barnes (prime candidate for the codename T) says he's an idiot but will be used anyway; plotters are anticipating he will go through with potshots at Walker; he had a "caretaker" (not de Mohrenschildt); he knew he was going to meet with Tom Davis in Mexico City; he was upset on his return to Dallas; caretaker had to deal with the issue; later, Volkmar [Schmidt] and Everett [Glover] stepped in as did a business colleague of deM by the name of Stanley; and the final Oswald entry, "on the wings of murder. the pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee. Clip Clip his wings." (a variation on a phrase used by LaCagoule for those set up to be "the patsy" or pigeon.)

So you do nothing with him.  You let him go through his day as usual.

That still begs the question: how could the strategist risk that he might not show up for work, or that he might duck out to the post office, or lunch early.  Again, the only plausible argument is that he knew enough about the operation that he stayed in the building.

If he is innocent of any foreknowledge, why didn't he rush down the hill to observe or stick around while authorities stormed the building, or any reasonable variation? Does his behavior comport with that of a completely innocent bystander?

You confiscate cameras, the media tells the public only what you tell them to say (classic example from Lifton--the next day a Dallas paper reports JFK died in the 6ht floor operating room at Parkland--which was the original plan before they changed it on the fly.   No one corrected the story for  the stenographers). You begin an intimidation of witnesses on a massive scale.  You quickly grab Oswald after the murder--you know where to find him--and ask for his alibi so you can begin destroying it. You claim you didn't record or take notes at Oswald's interrogation, and order anyone who did take notes to destroy them.  Hosty disobeys because he wants to write a book.  His notes end up at NARA, but it takes until 6years ago before anyone really focuses on them and Oswald's alibi. 

How do you know where to find him?  Jack Crichton comes in play, as does Bardwell Odum, the prime candidate for "caretaker."

(from what I've seen, I doubt Hosty was on his toes to the degree he thought ahead to a book deal! :-))

And most important you have a plan to kill Oswald quickly--before he can talk to a lawyer--so he can't defend himself. The original plan doesn't work so you have to bring in Ruby to do an emergency job.

Agree. But Ruby wasn't an afterthought.  Lafitte knows of him early in the year. Remember that Lafitte pens a note that is the near image of a note made in Ruby's diary related to "bond" on the same day. 

Somethings go wrong of course.  What bad luck to have Oswald filmed on the steps around the time of the murder.  But you have NBC to protect you.

A bridge too far, in my opinion. 

The killers conclude that all of this is preferable to avoid tipping off Oswald. They are right.

The conclusion is that Oswald knew he was involved in something quite serious and failed to eject himself (in spite of those who argue he sent out alarms).

So, if we've moved closer to an agreement that Oswald was the designated patsy, are you prepared to pursue - once and for all - who killed JFK?

Edited July 2, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Leslie Sharp writes:

Quote

The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

If we assume that the lone-gunman explanation was an essential component of the plot, then it would of course be a serious problem if Oswald was filmed standing on the steps, or indeed was seen anywhere other than on the sixth floor.

But Oswald's presence elsewhere wouldn't be a problem at all for a plot that didn't require Oswald to be officially designated as a lone gunman. For a plot which, let's say, intended the assassination to be blamed on the Cuban or Soviet regimes, it would not matter where Oswald was at the time of the shooting. All that was needed was a rifle to be discovered that would link the crime to Oswald.

Oswald's history, as a defector to the Soviet Union and then as a public supporter of the Castro regime, would be sufficient to link him to those regimes. Oswald need not even have turned up for work that day; as long as he could be linked to the rifle, those regimes would be linked to the assassination.

For a 'blame it on the Cubans or Soviets' type of plot, an apparent lone gunman would in fact be less effective than an apparent conspiracy involving more than one person. In this scenario, it would be better for Oswald to be said to have supplied the rifle than to have used it himself.

As it turned out, the lone-gunman explanation was manufactured after the event for straightforward political reasons. There's no need to assume that it was part of any plot.

--

P.S. There's an explanation of the background to this thread here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2743-the-latest-pm-thread-at-the-ef

[Andrej Stancak]

There are alternative solutions to Lee Oswald's behaviour during and after shooting between him being the 6th floor shooter and being a completely unaware of any plot. Lee Oswald did behave suspiciously after the shooting by leaving the Depository within minutes of the shooting, by asking the taxi driver to stop a few blocks away from his rooming house, by taking his pistol when leaving 1026 North Beckley, and by going to the Texas Theatre to watch a movie. These are not forms of behaviours a naive observer of a truly historic event, which assassination of the US President was, would display. Lee acted suspiciously but that does not make him an assassin right away; however, it creates favorable conditions for his framing. 

Assuming some kind of foreknowledge on the part of Lee Oswald, we can speculate what type of foreknowledge could this be. I wrote an essay article on the topic titled "Symptoms of foreknowledge" https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2021/03/28/symptoms-of-foreknowledge/. However, the article needs an update because one more possible scenario came to my attention after discovering the book by Matthew Smith: JFK. The Second Plot (1991). Briefly, Smith puts forward a hypothesis that there were two parallel plots happening on Friday, November 22 1963 and Lee Oswald was only aware of the "second plot", not the "first plot"  which was the assassination of the President. The "second plot" consisted in following the Mexico City thread and entailed Lee Oswald's flight to Cuba to support a clandesitine operation against Castro. After the failure of MC operation to obtain visa to Cuba, Lee was most likely asked to return to Dallas and be on standby until the new phase of the operation. That operation was planned for November 22, and assumed transporting Lee Oswald to the Red Bird airfield in PM hours. To this end, Lee Oswald was asked to be at a certain place or meet somone in Oak Cliff area around 1PM, and if that meeting went wrong, to go to the Texas Theatre to meet a contact. The coincidence with the visit of the President to Dallas was presented to Lee as an advantageous distraction allowing him to get to the airfield unnoticed. Please note, that synchronising the "second plot" with the assassination at 12:30 made Lee look like fleeing the crime scene.

The question is when did Lee realise that something was fishy with his assignment and that he might have been targeted as a patsi. In my view, this happened right there on the steps of the Depository doorway, some 30 seconds after the shooting when Gloria Calvery got to the lower steps and told everyone that the President has been shot. Lee Oswald as Prayer Man behaved very differently to all other doorway occupants; while the rest of the people in the doorway have moved and directed their gaze to enhance their views of South Elm/Tripple Underpass where President has been struck and where the limo was quickly departing from, Prayer Man is turned toward the east and his gaze is orientated toward the Records building or general area of the intersection of Elm and Houston. Prayer Man was more interested in understanding the meaning of the shooting for his assignment rather than in analysing the shooting scene visually. Eventually, he decided to follow the scenario of the "second plot" anyway. 

While getting access to the first generation digitised copies of Wiegman and Darnell films would be the most desirable development in Prayer Man saga, it is possible to read a number of useful cues from Darnell still in the currently available version of Darnell. 

Besides the points excluding anyone else but Lee Oswald as Prayer Man listed by Jeremy, I would add a couple of positive cues which can be read from Darnell still:

1. Prayer Man was a male, as was Lee Oswald.

2. Prayer Man as a White Caucasian, as was Lee Oswald.

3. Prayer Man's hairline was type II male baldness hairline (receding hair on temples without baldness at vertex area), the same type of baldness Lee Oswald had.

4. Prayer man's hair was dark, as was Lee Oswald's hair.

5. The body height of Prayer Man was 5' 9 1/2', fitting Lee Oswald's body height (according to the autopsy report) plus the height of a shoe heel.

6. The body posture of Prayer Man was that of left leg forward and right leg slighly backward and the right foot holding the weight of the body. Lee Oswald was photographed a number of times (even as a child or in the famous photograph with David Ferrie) in this stance. Moreover, Lee's own brother Robert stood this way during Lee's funeral.

7. The clothing of Prayer Man, the shirt and the trousers, appear as of almost continous grey colour; these tones of grey could be received by converting the maroon coloured shirt CE 151 to grey scale. 

The strongest identification point, excluding anyone else but Lee as Prayer Man, could be the dark spots seen on Prayer Man's shirt. Here, a better quality version would be of great help. However, even the current version of Darnell may provide a chance to compare the dark spots on Prayer Man's shirt with those on CE 151. Briefly, the dark spots are grouped diagonally over the front of the shirt from the right shoulder to the left hip. This shape of dark spots would be expected to be seen on shirt of a worker who often lifts and carries dusty book boxes. 

Here is a picture comparing enhanced CE151 and Prayer Man's shirt; please note the dark spots distributed diagonally in both shirts.

  

 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Andrej Stancak

[Leslie Sharp]

@Roger Odisio Roger,  Do you know who, specifically, confiscated the Wiegman and Darnell films?

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Roger Odisio Roger,  Do you know who, specifically, confiscated the Wiegman and Darnell films?

I'm more familiar with Darnell but I think the Wiegman story is similar. Jimmy Darnell worked for a local Dallas TV station that has changed its call letters several times since. The station is owned by NBC, which became an entertainment conglomerate by combining with Universal Pictures and is now owned by Comcast.  That means the people at Comcast are making the decisions about the film today.

 

Most researchers believe that very weekend NBC took the original film to its headquarters in New York.  That tells me they likely knew what it showed.  When for example Greg Parker asked NBC to see the film, they did not deny they had it.  Nor did they claim it was lost, destroyed, etc.  Of course that doesn't preclude them from saying that now.

 

I'm hoping a favorable decision in the MFF lawsuit will allow Bill and Larry to get the help of NARA to take the film from Comcast as a JFKA record. Seems to me the case for that is stronger than the taking of the Zapruder film from the family by the ARRB, since NBC is a "news" organization and its local affiliate has an FCC license that requires it to serve the public interest.

[Roger Odisio]

13 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

LS:  The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

To try to answer your question, begin with the fact that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The killers certainly used one or more trained assassins, not him.  He wasn't on the sixth floor.  He was somewhere else. 

Agree, so we factored in the question: would the strategy not have calibrated the possibility he would wander the building at lunchtime?  

E

LS:  The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

 

To try to answer your question, begin with the fact that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The killers certainly used one or more trained assassins, not him.  He wasn't on the sixth floor.  He was somewhere else. 

LS: Agree, so we factored in the question: would the strategy not have calibrated the possibility he would wander the building at lunchtime?  

 

RO:  I think it was calibrated in the sense that they decided not to try to control his movement for fear of alerting him to what they were up to.  How could they control his movement to the extent it would have mattered without alerting him?  Who would have done that?  

Even though the story they had prepared was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window. 

LS: Did the strategist determine that by the time shots were fired, chaos would ensue and no single individual — other than Oswald himself — could testify to his movements.

 

RO: More likely they knew that once Oswald was so quickly identified as the assassin, few would step forward to say, wait a minute I saw him on the steps.  Those whose statements did not comport with the official story were either ignored (like 3 of the 4 women on the 4th floor) or, like Vicky Adams, had her testimony changed without her knowledge to discredit her claim that she and one of the others were on the steps about the same time as Oswald was supposed to be.  Adams did not find out her testimony was changed until more than 40 years later when Barry Ernest told her.

 

So where was he?  Or better, if you were running the show what would you want to do with him?

 

LS: I wouldn't want him to be caught on film outside the building when the shots were fired.

 

RO: That was the lesser evil and they've shown they could handle the problem it created.  So far. 

 

The last thing you would want is for Oswald to figure out, or even sense, that he was being set up to take the rap.  He would run and the whole project probably would collapse.

 

LS: Ergo, he had to know just enough to guarantee he would follow his daily pattern. "Just go about your business, we'll do the rest."

 

Here's where the hypothesis diverges from the two primary camps, one arguing Oswald was clueless, and the other insisting that he fired the shots. Lafitte leads us to conclude that Oswald was in some way cognizant he was being maneuvered: Barnes (prime candidate for the codename T) says he's an idiot but will be used anyway; plotters are anticipating he will go through with potshots at Walker; he had a "caretaker" (not de Mohrenschildt); he knew he was going to meet with Tom Davis in Mexico City; he was upset on his return to Dallas; caretaker had to deal with the issue; later, Volkmar [Schmidt] and Everett [Glover] stepped in as did a business colleague of deM by the name of Stanley; and the final Oswald entry, “on the wings of murder. the pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee. Clip Clip his wings.”(a variation on a phrase used by LaCagoule for those set up to be "the patsy" or pigeon.)

 

RO:  I don't know how much Oswald knew or suspected.  Strikes me that is extremely difficult to know with any certainty.  But if it can be established Oswald didn't do it I think it matters much less than who did do it, other than if Oswald's ties to those guilty can help lead to them. 

 

So you do nothing with him.  You let him go through his day as usual.

 

LS: That still begs the question: how could the strategist risk that he might not show up for work, or that he might duck out to the post office, or lunch early.  Again, the only plausible argument is that he knew enough about the operation that he stayed in the building.

 

RO:  What were the strategists going to say?  Hey, Lee, make sure you go to work on Friday.  Don't ask why.  I'm pretty sure they weren't that stupid. They knew that once Oswald was dead, they were in the catbird's seat, pinning the murder on him and controlling the coverup.

 

LS:  If he is innocent of any foreknowledge, why didn't he rush down the hill to observe or stick around while authorities stormed the building, or any reasonable variation? Does his behavior comport with that of a completely innocent bystander?

 

RO:  I don't know if he was completely innocent of any foreknowledge, as I said.

 

You confiscate cameras, the media tells the public only what you tell them to say (classic example from Lifton--the next day a Dallas paper reports JFK died in the 6ht floor operating room at Parkland--which was the original plan before they changed it on the fly.   No one corrected the story for  the stenographers). You begin an intimidation of witnesses on a massive scale.  You quickly grab Oswald after the murder--you know where to find him--and ask for his alibi so you can begin destroying it. You claim you didn't record or take notes at Oswald's interrogation, and order anyone who did take notes to destroy them.  Hosty disobeys because he wants to write a book.  His notes end up at NARA, but it takes until 6years ago before anyone really focuses on them and Oswald's alibi. 

 

LS:  How do you know where to find him?  Jack Crichton comes in play, as does Bardwell Odum, the prime candidate for "caretaker."

 

RO: The fact they caught him so quickly sending all of those cops to the theater indicates they knew where he was

 

LS:  (from what I've seen, I doubt Hosty was on his toes to the degree he thought ahead to a book deal! :-))

 

RO:  I think most of the primary players were thinking about writing a book to cash in.  Hosty wrote his in '95 after JFK the movie came out stirring up interest again in the murder. Then he donated his papers with his interrogation notes to NARA!

 

And most important you have a plan to kill Oswald quickly--before he can talk to a lawyer--so he can't defend himself. The original plan doesn't work so you have to bring in Ruby to do an emergency job.

 

LS: Agree. But Ruby wasn't an afterthought.  Lafitte knows of him early in the year. Remember that Lafitte pens a note that is the near image of a note made in Ruby's diary related to "bond" on the same day. 

 

Somethings go wrong of course.  What bad luck to have Oswald filmed on the steps around the time of the murder.  But you have NBC to protect you.

 

LS:  A bridge too far, in my opinion. 

 

RO:  I don't think so.  NBC has a corporate policy to support the official Warren Report story, as that actor (name escapes me) found out when he wanted them to run a piece he did on the murder.

 

The killers conclude that all of this is preferable to avoid tipping off Oswald. They are right.

 

LS:  The conclusion is that Oswald knew he was involved in something quite serious and failed to eject himself (in spite of those who argue he sent out alarms).

 

RO:  Maybe.

 

So, if we've moved closer to an agreement that Oswald was the designated patsy, are you prepared to pursue - once and for all - who killed JFK?

 

RO:  Always have been.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I'm more familiar with Darnell but I think the Wiegman story is similar. Jimmy Darnell worked for a local Dallas TV station that has changed its call letters several times since. The station is owned by NBC, which became an entertainment conglomerate by combining with Universal Pictures and is now owned by Comcast.  That means the people at Comcast are making the decisions about the film today.

 

Most researchers believe that very weekend NBC took the original film to its headquarters in New York.  That tells me they likely knew what it showed.  When for example Greg Parker asked NBC to see the film, they did not deny they had it.  Nor did they claim it was lost, destroyed, etc.  Of course that doesn't preclude them from saying that now.

 

I'm hoping a favorable decision in the MFF lawsuit will allow Bill and Larry to get the help of NARA to take the film from Comcast as a JFKA record. Seems to me the case for that is stronger than the taking of the Zapruder film from the family by the ARRB, since NBC is a "news" organization and its local affiliate has an FCC license that requires it to serve the public interest.

Thanks, Roger.

We're pursuing a line of inquiry that could identify the teams responsible for confiscation and intimidation in the immediate aftermath, but it sounds like this was a fairly straight forward instance of an employ keeping his employer happy? Has anyone nailed down the timing? When did Darnell or NBC executives realize they "had something" in that footage of the front of the depository building; wasn't this inquiry triggered by a researcher who realized not all on the steps had been identified? (apologies that I've forgotten a level of detail.)

re: NBC
You may be aware, but a respected member of the JFK forensics community and author of peer reviewed articles for medical journals was in the NBC studio and was shown (briefly but long enough for certain details to register) a copy of the original Z film before it was tampered with.

Imposing FCC license requirements sounds to me like a solid tack.  Curme must be investing tens of thousands in this effort alone.

Off the top of my head / word association and a study in propinquity that might be of interest: Ethel and Edgar Stern owned NBC affiliate WDSU in New Orleans; Ethel's father Julius Rosenwald founded Sears-Roebuck whose CEO Gen. Robert E. Wood was a cofounder of American Security Council whose board included AF Captain H. Victor Williams, an executive of global real estate concern Previews Inc. which provided cover for Ilse (Mrs. Otto) Skorzeny. Williams was from New Orleans and his father was an executive in Southern Cotton. Ethel's father made a fortune in cotton brokerage in NOLA.  Previews Inc. established an office in Dallas/Oak Lawn in spring of 1963, a stone's throw from Ruby's Vegas Club, Lucas B&B, and Stoneleigh Hotel; six months later, Ilse met with Hitler's former "Favorite Banker", uncle Hjalmar Schacht at the Old Warsaw restaurant in Maple/Oak Lawn neighborhood on November 7 along with "T" a.k.a. Tracy Barnes to discuss $$. Previews was cofounded before the war by a group of NY art and literature personalities including Archbold van Beuren who was Wild Bill Donovan's Chief of Security during the war.  It was van Beuren who investigated the Amerasia case which is said to have helped kick off the Cold War propaganda machine. No doubt NBC played a role.

According to Lafitte, the Previews NY Headquarters was used as a meeting site for teasing out details of the Dallas operation. Gen. Charles Willoughby is scheduled to attend at least one of those meetings.

(Note: Gen. Willoughby is well-recognized as Gen. MacArthur's favorite little fascist; America First Committee cofounder and Sears executive Gen. Robert E. Wood advocated for MacArthur's presidential candidacy, as did H. L. Hunt of Dallas who poured $$$ into the effort; Willoughby and Hunt were connected both ideologically and financiallyl Hunt backed the efforts of General Edwin Walker as well.  Both Willoughby and Walker appear in Pierre Lafitte's notes.)   
 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Thanks, Roger.

We're pursuing a line of inquiry that could identify the teams responsible for confiscation and intimidation in the immediate aftermath, but it sounds like this was a fairly straight forward instance of an employ keeping his employer happy? Has anyone nailed down the timing? When did Darnell or NBC executives realize they "had something" in that footage of the front of the depository building; wasn't this inquiry triggered by a researcher who realized not all on the steps had been identified? (apologies that I've forgotten a level of detail.)

re: NBC
You may be aware, but a respected member of the JFK forensics community and author of peer reviewed articles for medical journals was in the NBC studio and was shown (briefly but long enough for certain details to register) a copy of the original Z film before it was tampered with.

Imposing FCC license requirements sounds to me like a solid tack.  Curme must be investing tens of thousands in this effort alone.

Off the top of my head / word association and a study in propinquity that might be of interest: Ethel and Edgar Stern owned NBC affiliate WDSU in New Orleans; Ethel's father Julius Rosenwald founded Sears-Roebuck whose CEO Gen. Robert E. Wood was a cofounder of American Security Council whose board included AF Captain H. Victor Williams, an executive of global real estate concern Previews Inc. which provided cover for Ilse (Mrs. Otto) Skorzeny. Williams was from New Orleans and his father was an executive in Southern Cotton. Ethel's father made a fortune in cotton brokerage in NOLA.  Previews Inc. established an office in Dallas/Oak Lawn in spring of 1963, a stone's throw from Ruby's Vegas Club, Lucas B&B, and Stoneleigh Hotel; six months later, Ilse met with Hitler's former "Favorite Banker", uncle Hjalmar Schacht at the Old Warsaw restaurant in Maple/Oak Lawn neighborhood on November 7 along with "T" a.k.a. Tracy Barnes to discuss $$. Previews was cofounded before the war by a group of NY art and literature personalities including Archbold van Beuren who was Wild Bill Donovan's Chief of Security during the war.  It was van Beuren who investigated the Amerasia case which is said to have helped kick off the Cold War propaganda machine. No doubt NBC played a role.

According to Lafitte, the Previews NY Headquarters was used as a meeting site for teasing out details of the Dallas operation. Gen. Charles Willoughby is scheduled to attend at least one of those meetings.

(Note: Gen. Willoughby is well-recognized as Gen. MacArthur's favorite little fascist; America First Committee cofounder and Sears executive Gen. Robert E. Wood advocated for MacArthur's presidential candidacy, as did H. L. Hunt of Dallas who poured $$$ into the effort; Willoughby and Hunt were connected both ideologically and financiallyl Hunt backed the efforts of General Edwin Walker as well.  Both Willoughby and Walker appear in Pierre Lafitte's notes.)   
 

We're pursuing a line of inquiry that could identify the teams responsible for confiscation and intimidation in the immediate aftermath, but it sounds like this was a fairly straight forward instance of an employ keeping his employer happy? Has anyone nailed down the timing? When did Darnell or NBC executives realize they "had something" in that footage of the front of the depository building; wasn't this inquiry triggered by a researcher who realized not all on the steps had been identified? (apologies that I've forgotten a level of detail.)

 

RO:  Seems clear to me that NBC knows what is in the film. Scooping it up that weekend (tho I don't recall where learned that) indicates they either knew its contents or wanted to see them before anyone else could.  Stonewalling inquiries ever since is another indication.  I don't believe they would have refused to let anyone else see the film without knowing what it showed.

 

NBC knows why they are being asked to see the film.  If that figure isn't Oswald they would have told the world already.  NBC is one of the major villains in the whole coverup, but that's another story.

 

Darnell died in I think 2017.  He had been contacted before that and had refused to talk about the film at all.  Apparently a loyal employee following corporate policy to the end.

 

Do you mean Sean Murphy?  He did most of the heavy lifting developing the Prayerman thesis mostly right here on EV, and he was the one who named the figure on the steps.

 

LS:  Imposing FCC license requirements sounds to me like a solid tack.  Curme must be investing tens of thousands in this effort alone.

 

RO:  The FCC renews licenses every 8 years, and the local Dallas affiliate was renewed a couple of years ago.   I don't know if a TV station has ever been denied renewal because it failed to meet its public interest standard in this way, but this seems to be a clear case of suppressing news its viewers have a right see.

Curme?

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

16 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

We're pursuing a line of inquiry that could identify the teams responsible for confiscation and intimidation in the immediate aftermath, but it sounds like this was a fairly straight forward instance of an employ keeping his employer happy? Has anyone nailed down the timing? When did Darnell or NBC executives realize they "had something" in that footage of the front of the depository building; wasn't this inquiry triggered by a researcher who realized not all on the steps had been identified? (apologies that I've forgotten a level of detail.)

 

RO:  Seems clear to me that NBC knows what is in the film. Scooping it up that weekend (tho I don't recall where learned that) indicates they either knew its contents or wanted to see them before anyone else could.  Stonewalling inquiries ever since is another indication.  I don't believe they would have refused to let anyone else see the film without knowing what it showed.

 

NBC knows why they are being asked to see the film.  If that figure isn't Oswald they would have told the world already.  NBC is one of the major villains in the whole coverup, but that's another story.

 

Darnell died in I think 2017.  He had been contacted before that and had refused to talk about the film at all.  Apparently a loyal employee following corporate policy to the end.

 

Do you mean Sean Murphy?  He did most of the heavy lifting developing the Prayerman thesis mostly right here on EV, and he was the one who named the figure on the steps.

 

LS:  Imposing FCC license requirements sounds to me like a solid tack.  Curme must be investing tens of thousands in this effort alone.

 

RO:  The FCC renews licenses every 8 years, and the local Dallas affiliate was renewed a couple of years ago.   I don't know if a TV station has ever been denied renewal because it failed to meet its public interest standard in this way, but this seems to be a clear case of suppressing news its viewers have a right see.

Curme?

 

 

 

Posted 11 minutes ago

   3 hours ago,  Leslie Sharp said: 

Thanks, Roger.

We're pursuing a line of inquiry that could identify the teams responsible for confiscation and intimidation in the immediate aftermath, but it sounds like this was a fairly straight forward instance of an employ keeping his employer happy? Has anyone nailed down the timing? When did Darnell or NBC executives realize they "had something" in that footage of the front of the depository building; wasn't this inquiry triggered by a researcher who realized not all on the steps had been identified? (apologies that I've forgotten a level of detail.)

re: NBC
You may be aware, but a respected member of the JFK forensics community and author of peer reviewed articles for medical journals was in the NBC studio and was shown (briefly but long enough for certain details to register) a copy of the original Z film before it was tampered with.

Imposing FCC license requirements sounds to me like a solid tack.  Curme must be investing tens of thousands in this effort alone.

Off the top of my head / word association and a study in propinquity that might be of interest: Ethel and Edgar Stern owned NBC affiliate WDSU in New Orleans; Ethel's father Julius Rosenwald founded Sears-Roebuck whose CEO Gen. Robert E. Wood was a cofounder of American Security Council whose board included AF Captain H. Victor Williams, an executive of global real estate concern Previews Inc. which provided cover for Ilse (Mrs. Otto) Skorzeny. Williams was from New Orleans and his father was an executive in Southern Cotton. Ethel's father made a fortune in cotton brokerage in NOLA.  Previews Inc. established an office in Dallas/Oak Lawn in spring of 1963, a stone's throw from Ruby's Vegas Club, Lucas B&B, and Stoneleigh Hotel; six months later, Ilse met with Hitler's former "Favorite Banker", uncle Hjalmar Schacht at the Old Warsaw restaurant in Maple/Oak Lawn neighborhood on November 7 along with "T" a.k.a. Tracy Barnes to discuss $$. Previews was cofounded before the war by a group of NY art and literature personalities including Archbold van Beuren who was Wild Bill Donovan's Chief of Security during the war.  It was van Beuren who investigated the Amerasia case which is said to have helped kick off the Cold War propaganda machine. No doubt NBC played a role.

According to Lafitte, the Previews NY Headquarters was used as a meeting site for teasing out details of the Dallas operation. Gen. Charles Willoughby is scheduled to attend at least one of those meetings.

(Note: Gen. Willoughby is well-recognized as Gen. MacArthur's favorite little fascist; America First Committee cofounder and Sears executive Gen. Robert E. Wood advocated for MacArthur's presidential candidacy, as did H. L. Hunt of Dallas who poured $$$ into the effort; Willoughby and Hunt were connected both ideologically and financiallyl Hunt backed the efforts of General Edwin Walker as well.  Both Willoughby and Walker appear in Pierre Lafitte's notes.)   
 

Expand  

 

 

RO. NBC knows why they are being asked to see the film.  If that figure isn't Oswald they would have told the world already.  NBC is one of the major villains in the whole coverup, but that's another story.

LS. Yes, my reason for providing one and two degrees separation from the Dallas plot to NBC.

LS. Yes, I meant Sean Murphy who I believe withdrew from the debate long ago.

LS. Boston-based investor Oliver Curme, founder of the non-profit Mary Ferrell Foundation. 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

@Roger Odisio @Jeremy Bojczuk 

Can you expand on whether Oswald stressed during interrogation  that he was out front of the depository building at the time of the shooting?  

Also, if he had insisted that he wasn't inside the building, wouldn't he have provided them with the names of the coworkers who were standing near him outside?  

I recognize the pertinent notes are said to have been destroyed, but wouldn't an innocent Oswald have seized the opportunity with reporters to clearly state, "I was standing outside!" Instead he focused on the Soviet Union? This suggests to many of us that he was processing and rapidly realizing he had been maneuvered for weeks if not months and years.

[Roger Odisio]

23 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

 

 

 

RO. NBC knows why they are being asked to see the film.  If that figure isn't Oswald they would have told the world already.  NBC is one of the major villains in the whole coverup, but that's another story.

LS. Yes, my reason for providing one and two degrees separation from the Dallas plot to NBC.

LS. Yes, I meant Sean Murphy who I believe withdrew from the debate long ago.

LS. Boston-based investor Oliver Curme, founder of the non-profit Mary Ferrell Foundation. 

 

 

LS: Yes, I meant Sean Murphy who I believe withdrew from the debate long ago.
 

Murphy's last post on EF was on the 50th anniversary of the JFKA in 2013.  He had meticulously built the thesis and exhaustively answered all questions thrown at him.  Some speculated he felt he had done all he could do at that time to establish the idea that figure on the steps likely was Oswald.  The date of his exit probably was no accident.

 

Murphy had been asked to write a book so his ideas would not be lost.  He did not.  But Stan Dane did and published the material as Prayer Man: Out of the Shadows and into the Light, detailing Murphy's work.

[Leslie Sharp]

14 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

LS: Yes, I meant Sean Murphy who I believe withdrew from the debate long ago.
 

Murphy's last post on EF was on the 50th anniversary of the JFKA in 2013.  He had meticulously built the thesis and exhaustively answered all questions thrown at him.  Some speculated he felt he had done all he could do at that time to establish the idea that figure on the steps likely was Oswald.  The date of his exit probably was no accident.

 

Murphy had been asked to write a book so his ideas would not be lost.  He did not.  But Stan Dane did and published the material as Prayer Man: Out of the Shadows and into the Light, detailing Murphy's work.

That comports with what I've been heard, but I've also been told that he cut off all communication with those who had followed his research closely. Rumors abound.

How did Murphy gain access to the original image??

I encountered Stan Dane as well as several of the early advocates years ago on Morley's jfkfacts.   Employing ridicule, threat and intimidation to advance one's hypothesis is pathological. At one point, a household member was on the verge of contacting the FBI. Presumably we've all matured.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

8 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

LS:  The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

 

To try to answer your question, begin with the fact that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The killers certainly used one or more trained assassins, not him.  He wasn't on the sixth floor.  He was somewhere else. 

LS: Agree, so we factored in the question: would the strategy not have calibrated the possibility he would wander the building at lunchtime?  

 

RO:  I think it was calibrated in the sense that they decided not to try to control his movement for fear of alerting him to what they were up to.  How could they control his movement to the extent it would have mattered without alerting him?  Who would have done that?  

Even though the story they had prepared was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window. 

LS: Did the strategist determine that by the time shots were fired, chaos would ensue and no single individual — other than Oswald himself — could testify to his movements.

 

RO: More likely they knew that once Oswald was so quickly identified as the assassin, few would step forward to say, wait a minute I saw him on the steps.  Those whose statements did not comport with the official story were either ignored (like 3 of the 4 women on the 4th floor) or, like Vicky Adams, had her testimony changed without her knowledge to discredit her claim that she and one of the others were on the steps about the same time as Oswald was supposed to be.  Adams did not find out her testimony was changed until more than 40 years later when Barry Ernest told her.

 

So where was he?  Or better, if you were running the show what would you want to do with him?

 

LS: I wouldn't want him to be caught on film outside the building when the shots were fired.

 

RO: That was the lesser evil and they've shown they could handle the problem it created.  So far. 

 

The last thing you would want is for Oswald to figure out, or even sense, that he was being set up to take the rap.  He would run and the whole project probably would collapse.

 

LS: Ergo, he had to know just enough to guarantee he would follow his daily pattern. "Just go about your business, we'll do the rest."

 

Here's where the hypothesis diverges from the two primary camps, one arguing Oswald was clueless, and the other insisting that he fired the shots. Lafitte leads us to conclude that Oswald was in some way cognizant he was being maneuvered: Barnes (prime candidate for the codename T) says he's an idiot but will be used anyway; plotters are anticipating he will go through with potshots at Walker; he had a "caretaker" (not de Mohrenschildt); he knew he was going to meet with Tom Davis in Mexico City; he was upset on his return to Dallas; caretaker had to deal with the issue; later, Volkmar [Schmidt] and Everett [Glover] stepped in as did a business colleague of deM by the name of Stanley; and the final Oswald entry, “on the wings of murder. the pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee. Clip Clip his wings.”(a variation on a phrase used by LaCagoule for those set up to be "the patsy" or pigeon.)

 

RO:  I don't know how much Oswald knew or suspected.  Strikes me that is extremely difficult to know with any certainty.  But if it can be established Oswald didn't do it I think it matters much less than who did do it, other than if Oswald's ties to those guilty can help lead to them. 

 

So you do nothing with him.  You let him go through his day as usual.

 

LS: That still begs the question: how could the strategist risk that he might not show up for work, or that he might duck out to the post office, or lunch early.  Again, the only plausible argument is that he knew enough about the operation that he stayed in the building.

 

RO:  What were the strategists going to say?  Hey, Lee, make sure you go to work on Friday.  Don't ask why.  I'm pretty sure they weren't that stupid. They knew that once Oswald was dead, they were in the catbird's seat, pinning the murder on him and controlling the coverup.

 

LS:  If he is innocent of any foreknowledge, why didn't he rush down the hill to observe or stick around while authorities stormed the building, or any reasonable variation? Does his behavior comport with that of a completely innocent bystander?

 

RO:  I don't know if he was completely innocent of any foreknowledge, as I said.

 

You confiscate cameras, the media tells the public only what you tell them to say (classic example from Lifton--the next day a Dallas paper reports JFK died in the 6ht floor operating room at Parkland--which was the original plan before they changed it on the fly.   No one corrected the story for  the stenographers). You begin an intimidation of witnesses on a massive scale.  You quickly grab Oswald after the murder--you know where to find him--and ask for his alibi so you can begin destroying it. You claim you didn't record or take notes at Oswald's interrogation, and order anyone who did take notes to destroy them.  Hosty disobeys because he wants to write a book.  His notes end up at NARA, but it takes until 6years ago before anyone really focuses on them and Oswald's alibi. 

 

LS:  How do you know where to find him?  Jack Crichton comes in play, as does Bardwell Odum, the prime candidate for "caretaker."

 

RO: The fact they caught him so quickly sending all of those cops to the theater indicates they knew where he was

 

LS:  (from what I've seen, I doubt Hosty was on his toes to the degree he thought ahead to a book deal! :-))

 

RO:  I think most of the primary players were thinking about writing a book to cash in.  Hosty wrote his in '95 after JFK the movie came out stirring up interest again in the murder. Then he donated his papers with his interrogation notes to NARA!

 

And most important you have a plan to kill Oswald quickly--before he can talk to a lawyer--so he can't defend himself. The original plan doesn't work so you have to bring in Ruby to do an emergency job.

 

LS: Agree. But Ruby wasn't an afterthought.  Lafitte knows of him early in the year. Remember that Lafitte pens a note that is the near image of a note made in Ruby's diary related to "bond" on the same day. 

 

Somethings go wrong of course.  What bad luck to have Oswald filmed on the steps around the time of the murder.  But you have NBC to protect you.

 

LS:  A bridge too far, in my opinion. 

 

RO:  I don't think so.  NBC has a corporate policy to support the official Warren Report story, as that actor (name escapes me) found out when he wanted them to run a piece he did on the murder.

 

The killers conclude that all of this is preferable to avoid tipping off Oswald. They are right.

 

LS:  The conclusion is that Oswald knew he was involved in something quite serious and failed to eject himself (in spite of those who argue he sent out alarms).

 

RO:  Maybe.

 

So, if we've moved closer to an agreement that Oswald was the designated patsy, are you prepared to pursue - once and for all - who killed JFK?

 

RO:  Always have been.

 

LS:  The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

 

To try to answer your question, begin with the fact that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The killers certainly used one or more trained assassins, not him.  He wasn't on the sixth floor.  He was somewhere else. 

LS: Agree, so we factored in the question: would the strategy not have calibrated the possibility he would wander the building at lunchtime?  

 

RO:  I think it was calibrated in the sense that they decided not to try to control his movement for fear of alerting him to what they were up to.  How could they control his movement to the extent it would have mattered without alerting him?  Who would have done that?  

 

LS: which prompts the question, who are"they"?

Even though the story they had prepared was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window. 

LS: Did the strategist determine that by the time shots were fired, chaos would ensue and no single individual — other than Oswald himself — could testify to his movements.

 

RO: More likely they knew that once Oswald was so quickly identified as the assassin, few would step forward to say, wait a minute I saw him on the steps. 

 

LS: again, who are "they"?

 

Those whose statements did not comport with the official story were either ignored (like 3 of the 4 women on the 4th floor) or, like Vicky Adams, had her testimony changed without her knowledge to discredit her claim that she and one of the others were on the steps about the same time as Oswald was supposed to be.  Adams did not find out her testimony was changed until more than 40 years later when Barry Ernest told her.

 

LS: the element of chaos was a critical component. It would be interesting - not essential, but curious -to figure out precisely who managed that aspect. Who sat on the witness affidavits and under whose orders? It required a level of sophisticated coordination someone inside with authority. I think we both could come up with several candidates.

 

So where was he?  Or better, if you were running the show what would you want to do with him?

 

LS: I wouldn't want him to be caught on film outside the building when the shots were fired.

 

RO: That was the lesser evil and they've shown they could handle the problem it created.  So far. 

 

LS: "they" handled it for sixty years, regardless of later hopes invested in the "Prayer Man" hypothesis. I'm pointing out that it was a  forced error and one a military strategist wouldn't be likely to make.

 

The last thing you would want is for Oswald to figure out, or even sense, that he was being set up to take the rap.  He would run and the whole project probably would collapse.

 

LS: Ergo, he had to know just enough to guarantee he would follow his daily pattern. "Just go about your business, we'll do the rest."

 

Here's where the hypothesis diverges from the two primary camps, one arguing Oswald was clueless, and the other insisting that he fired the shots. Lafitte leads us to conclude that Oswald was in some way cognizant he was being maneuvered: Barnes (prime candidate for the codename T) says he's an idiot but will be used anyway; plotters are anticipating he will go through with potshots at Walker; he had a "caretaker" (not de Mohrenschildt); he knew he was going to meet with Tom Davis in Mexico City; he was upset on his return to Dallas; caretaker had to deal with the issue; later, Volkmar [Schmidt] and Everett [Glover] stepped in as did a business colleague of deM by the name of Stanley; and the final Oswald entry, “on the wings of murder. the pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee. Clip Clip his wings.”(a variation on a phrase used by LaCagoule for those set up to be "the patsy" or pigeon.)

 

RO:  I don't know how much Oswald knew or suspected.  Strikes me that is extremely difficult to know with any certainty. 

 

LS: I think it's among the most critical questions of the investigation and can be answered based on circumstantial evidence; it encompasses his full history - youth to Marines, his associates in New Orleans and Dallas (including allegations he dated JVB), the Walker incident, an encounter with RC Nagell, known to Tom Davis, Jack Ruby, meeting de M and the Paines and Glover/Schmidt, etc. etc.

 

RO: But if it can be established Oswald didn't do it I think it matters much less than who did do it, other than if Oswald's ties to those guilty can help lead to them. 

 

LS: Can you clarify: I think it matters much less than who did do it, other than if Oswald's ties to those guilty can help lead to them. 

 

So you do nothing with him.  You let him go through his day as usual.

 

LS: That still begs the question: how could the strategist risk that he might not show up for work, or that he might duck out to the post office, or lunch early.  Again, the only plausible argument is that he knew enough about the operation that he stayed in the building.

 

RO:  What were the strategists going to say?  Hey, Lee, make sure you go to work on Friday.  Don't ask why. 

 

LS: In a word, absolutely.

 

RO: I'm pretty sure they weren't that stupid.
 

LS: The strategist had to be certain he showed up for work; the lives of the mechanics depended on it. From there the question remains, could he be the effective patsy — providing diversion while Souetre, Canon, Askins, et al made their way out of Dallas — standing outside as the shot were fired?

 

RO: They knew that once Oswald was dead, they were in the catbird's seat, pinning the murder on him and controlling the coverup.

 

LS: Agree, with some adjustment - for a later discussion.

 

LS:  If he is innocent of any foreknowledge, why didn't he rush down the hill to observe or stick around while authorities stormed the building, or any reasonable variation? Does his behavior comport with that of a completely innocent bystander?

 

RO:  I don't know if he was completely innocent of any foreknowledge, as I said.

 

LS: Does his behavior comport with an innocent bystander.  As I asked in a separate post, why didn't Oswald say immediately on arrest or at least in the early hours at DPD that he was standing outside, and that he could identify his coworkers who were standing nearby.

 

You confiscate cameras, the media tells the public only what you tell them to say (classic example from Lifton--the next day a Dallas paper reports JFK died in the 6ht floor operating room at Parkland--which was the original plan before they changed it on the fly.   No one corrected the story for  the stenographers). You begin an intimidation of witnesses on a massive scale.  You quickly grab Oswald after the murder--you know where to find him--and ask for his alibi so you can begin destroying it. You claim you didn't record or take notes at Oswald's interrogation, and order anyone who did take notes to destroy them.  Hosty disobeys because he wants to write a book.  His notes end up at NARA, but it takes until 6years ago before anyone really focuses on them and Oswald's alibi. 

 

LS:  How do you know where to find him?  Jack Crichton comes in play, as does Bardwell Odum, the prime candidate for "caretaker."

 

RO: The fact they caught him so quickly sending all of those cops to the theater indicates they knew where he was

 

LS: and our prime suspect for being one degree from that phase of the operation is the "caretaker", FBI SA Bardwell Odum who carried the rifle from the building, who called in a description, who rushed to the Tippit shooting in the middle of a manhunt for his Commander in Chief's assassin, and who dropped everything and rushed to the theatre ... and moved on to his friends the Paines, took a bogus photo to show Marguerite, ended up with CE 399 (although he would later deny ever having seen the bullet), interviewed Sylvia Odio . . .  the list of his activity is long indeed.  And yet, he was never called to testify before the WC.

 

LS:  (from what I've seen, I doubt Hosty was on his toes to the degree he thought ahead to a book deal! :-))

 

RO:  I think most of the primary players were thinking about writing a book to cash in.  Hosty wrote his in '95 after JFK the movie came out stirring up interest again in the murder. Then he donated his papers with his interrogation notes to NARA!

 

LS: Is it possible Odum sat on Hosty?

 

And most important you have a plan to kill Oswald quickly--before he can talk to a lawyer--so he can't defend himself. The original plan doesn't work so you have to bring in Ruby to do an emergency job.

 

LS: Agree. But Ruby wasn't an afterthought.  Lafitte knows of him early in the year. Remember that Lafitte pens a note that is the near image of a note made in Ruby's diary related to "bond" on the same day. 

 

Somethings go wrong of course.  What bad luck to have Oswald filmed on the steps around the time of the murder.  But you have NBC to protect you.

 

LS:  A bridge too far, in my opinion. 

 

RO:  I don't think so.  NBC has a corporate policy to support the official Warren Report story, as that actor (name escapes me) found out when he wanted them to run a piece he did on the murder.

LS: Or, Oswald wasn't outside.

 

The killers conclude that all of this is preferable to avoid tipping off Oswald. They are right.

 

LS:  The conclusion is that Oswald knew he was involved in something quite serious and failed to eject himself (in spite of those who argue he sent out alarms).

 

RO:  Maybe.

 

So, if we've moved closer to an agreement that Oswald was the designated patsy, are you prepared to pursue - once and for all - who killed JFK?

 

RO:  Always have been.