A new look at paper bags, curtain rods, and Oswald

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Can you conceive of a possible argument for innocence or reasonable doubt of Oswald in the cases of Walker, Tippit, or JFK which you would not consider justly labeled CT?

No.

 

[Greg Doudna]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

If Oswald had actually given his rifle to somebody else between Nov. 11 and 22, then Oswald would have certainly told the police that very important fact after he was arrested and charged with committing a murder that he (under those conditions) very likely never committed.

Would Oswald have had every reason under the sun to admit to the cops that he had given his rifle to another person prior to Nov. 22 if such a rifle transaction was actually the truth? Yes, of course he would. (Especially after being shown the backyard photo on Nov. 23.)

But did Oswald say anything to the authorities about some other person coming into possession of his Carcano rifle? No, he didn't.

You make a point. Under interrogation, from the reports available, Oswald denied altogether he had a rifle at any time in the US. There is no record he told of removing the rifle from his belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on the morning of Nov 11, had the rifle's scope reinstalled on that date and the rifle sighted-in, eleven days before the assassination, or why he did so if so, following which he either did or did not convey the rifle to someone unknown.

You are correct. There is no record Oswald told of such activity in his interrogation. 

If I understand you correctly, you are citing that as an argument that an Oswald conveyance of the rifle following such Nov 11 activity on the part of Oswald would not have happened, for surely no accused assassin of a president would fail to disclose a conveyance of a possible murder weapon to the assassins a few days before the assassination, if it had happened.

("No I was not the shooter! I was only an accomplice, can't you see? Now after having confessed that, may I now please have a lawyer??")

But let's back up, Mr. David. First things first. Be clear and to the point--this is a third request for a straight answer from you on a prior issue of fact: either Oswald did or did not, on the morning of Nov 11, 1963, remove the rifle from the garage and got the original scope reinstalled on it at the Irving Sport Shop on that date.

That either did or did not happen on that date. It is an up or down, yes or no factual issue, amenable to evidence, falsification, and judgments thereof.

A Feb 2023 study by me set forth original argument and analysis why that did occur, reasons for establishment of that as a fact, and that the Warren Commission erred on that point in denying it. "The Oswald rifle scope installation at the Irving Sport Shop of Monday, November 11, 1963" (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf).

(And related to that, a prior study by me of Jan 2023 showing that an Oswald family visit to the Furniture Mart occurred immediately prior to going to the Irving Sport Shop for that rifle scope reinstallation on that date: "The mystery of the Furniture Mart sighting of Lee and Marina Oswald and their children and its solution", https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/JFK-Furniture-Mart-mystery-105-pdf2.pdf.) 

Are you prepared to say straight up that you are certain a removal of the rifle from the Ruth Paine garage and an Irving Sport Shop scope reinstallation by Oswald on Nov 11, 1963, did not occur, and that you know that to be a fact? 

In the interests of full disclosure when giving your answer, does your conclusion on that, if so, involve reading and comprehension of the Feb 2023 Irving Sport Shop study? Thanks--

Edited October 17, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Crane]

You see,right or wrong...the above is worded with intelligence,with proper grammar & speech.That is how I would like to sound when debating or discussing on here  ^^^

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

If I understand you correctly, you are citing that as an argument that an Oswald conveyance of the rifle following such Nov 11 activity on the part of Oswald would not have happened, for surely no accused assassin of a president would fail to disclose a conveyance of a possible murder weapon to the assassins a few days before the assassination, if it had happened.

("No I was not the shooter! I was only an accomplice, can't you see? Now after having confessed that, may I now please have a lawyer??")

If Lee Oswald was an accomplice, then you're right. Oswald, under those make-believe conditions, certainly wouldn't have wanted to tell the cops that he had handed off the murder weapon to somebody else within the context of Oswald himself KNOWING that the "other person" was going to kill the President with it.

But my last post was based on an assumption that you, Gregory Doudna, were very likely of the opinion that Lee Oswald was completely blameless for the assassination (i.e., he wasn't a shooter and he was also not an "accomplice").

Maybe my assumption was inaccurate? ~shrug~

In any event, your entire "November 11" theory is nothing but 100% guesswork and speculation on your part, and you've got a HUGE hurdle to climb if you really expect anyone here to believe that Lee Oswald REALLY had his "lunch" in that large-ish paper sack on 11/22. Because if that was the case, then we've got no choice but to paint Buell Frazier as a major story-teller (l-i-a-r) with regard to TWO key aspects of his post-assassination story and testimony ---

1. The part about Lee telling Buell that the package contained curtain rods (a very silly thing for Oswald to say, of course, if the bag really had a sandwich and an apple in it).

2. And the part of Buell's story where he says he specifically ASKED Oswald about his lunch that morning (Nov. 22), with Oswald telling Frazier that he was going to buy his lunch that day.

And I think any explanation that you (or anyone else) comes up with to try and logically explain away BOTH the "curtain rods" lie that Oswald quite clearly did tell Buell Wesley Frazier on BOTH Nov. 21 and 22....plus the "No Lunch / LHO Said He Was Going To Buy His Lunch" testimony provided by Frazier....is destined to be a very weak (and desperate!) explanation indeed.

Plus, if Oswald's paper bag contained merely his lunch, then why didn't Lee fold down the bag after he put his lunch inside of it? Don't tell me a cheese sandwich and an apple took up 27 inches of space? Remember, the amount of the bag that was visible on the back seat of Frazier's 1954 Chevy, according to Frazier's own observations, was measured and was found to be about 27 inches (per Frazier's own estimate).

In addition, there's Frazier's "Tucked under his armpit" story too, which would mean that this long bag that you (Greg) think held merely a person's "lunch", was being carried by Oswald into the Book Depository in a very strange manner---with Frazier claiming Oswald had one end "cupped" in his right hand, with the other end stuck up under his armpit. Who on Earth would carry their lunch bag in such a strange non-folded-up manner? It makes no logical sense whatsoever. You'd be better off going back to saying the package contained curtain rods.

And....

No, I do not think that Lee Harvey Oswald removed his rifle from Ruth Paine's garage on November 11th, 1963, and I most certainly do not believe that Oswald (with Marina and his 2 daughters in tow)....quoting Greg Doudna.... "borrowed Michael Paine's blue-and-white Olds parked in front of Ruth's house, and Lee drove himself and Marina with their two children to a gunsmith to have the scope, which had come with the rifle and then had been removed by Oswald, reinstalled on it."

That latter part about Oswald using Michael Paine's car is, in my opinion, a preposterous story. (For one thing, why would Lee want to drag his wife and two tiny children with him to the Irving Sports Shop? For what purpose would they be needed on such a journey?)

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Miles Massicotte]

There is another reason that Oswald would have denied handing off the rifle, if he did indeed hand it off, rather than say something like "hey I didn't have possession of the rifle!". He had no choice. Oswald under interrogation denied ever owning a rifle at all, which is perfectly understandable because he (or someone else posing as him) ordered the rifle in the first place under the Hidell pseudonym. To admit owning or handing off the rifle or handling it at any time implies an association with the rifle Oswald was trying to avoid at all costs. 

[David Von Pein]

Greg D.,

Can you confirm for a fact that the Irving Sports Shop was even open for business on Monday, November 11, 1963?

It was, after all, a federal holiday (Veterans Day).

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

On 10/17/2023 at 3:34 PM, Miles Massicotte said:

There is another reason that Oswald would have denied handing off the rifle, if he did indeed hand it off, rather than say something like "hey I didn't have possession of the rifle!". He had no choice. Oswald under interrogation denied ever owning a rifle at all, which is perfectly understandable because he (or someone else posing as him) ordered the rifle in the first place under the Hidell pseudonym. To admit owning or handing off the rifle or handling it at any time implies an association with the rifle Oswald was trying to avoid at all costs. 

Good comment Miles. Four thoughts come to mind.

Further thoughts on Oswald, mail-order firearms, and the post-assassination interrogations

(1) Oswald did not deny he owned the revolver; why then does he dissemble over how he got it? What was the secret Oswald wanted to keep about having bought it mail order? Maybe there is something to the idea that Oswald was carrying out operative work related to the Dodd Committee investigation on mail-order gun purchases, not in the sense of direct contact with the Committee, but Oswald in contact with someone, say ATTU of the Treasury Department (ATTU later became known as ATF) carrying out investigative work for that Committee on regulation of firearms. Perhaps some activity of this nature may be an unseen background to some of Oswald's responses to questions under interrogation.

(2) When deputy sheriff Roger Craig told of seeing a man running from the front of the TSBD get in a Rambler station wagon, Craig misidentified the man he saw running as Oswald (it wasn't), and (later) misidentified the vehicle as Ruth Paine's station wagon (it wasn't) ... nevertheless, I believe Craig's account of seeing Oswald and Fritz in Fritz's office happened, only Craig's interpretation of it was flawed. As told by Craig, he identified Oswald to Fritz as the man he saw get into the Rambler wagon. Fritz told Oswald, Oswald said "I told you I left" (apparently referring to leaving the TSBD), and then a puzzling, "That's Ruth Paine's car. Don't bring her into this!"

The station wagon Roger Craig saw wasn't Ruth Paine's station wagon, that is just plain fact, Ruth Paine's station wagon was parked in front of Ruth Paine's house, with Ruth and Marina inside, in Irving.

But on the assumption that some form of the words themselves occurred that Craig heard, maybe there is another possibility. Building a step further from my Feb 2023 paper linked earlier, "The Oswald rifle scope installation at the Irving Sport Shop...", the one time Oswald had driven a Ruth Paine car (actually the car technically was owned by Michael Paine, but it was parked permanently in front of Ruth Paine's house)--not Ruth's two-tone green Chevy wagon that she personally drove but rather an unused 1955 two-tone blue and white Oldsmobile four-door sedan--was on the morning of Mon Nov 11, 1963, to get the rifle scope reinstalled that day. Roger Craig's account may be some version of Oswald having misunderstood Fritz's question or meaning. Oswald somehow thought Fritz was telling him he had been seen with Ruth Paine's car. Oswald may then have connected Fritz's question to Nov 11. Oswald then sought to exonerate Ruth Paine, an innocent party, from Oswald's actions driving that car with Marina and the children when Ruth was gone on Nov 11, 1963 (of which Ruth Paine was unaware [and I believe still unaware to the present day]).

In other words, Oswald's strange response, "that was Ruth Paine's car--leave Ruth Paine out of this", may reflect a misunderstanding of a question and a response to what Oswald thought was an accusation that a witness had sighted him driving Ruth Paine's car, which Oswald related to the time when he did, Nov 11, the day of the rifle scope repair. Then, according to Craig, Oswald said in a dejected voice, "Now everyone will know who I am", which Craig did not interpret as celebrity from having killed a president, but rather someone whose cover was being blown. 

(3) Of all of the reported interrogation interviews of Oswald that weekend, one questioning from one agency who visited Oswald never was reported: Frank Ellsworth, ATF (in 1963 the Alcohol Tobacco Tax Unit, predecessor of ATF, the ATF acronym is used here anachronistically). No written report, no document, is known of that Fri Nov 22 ATF visit and interaction with Oswald. The existence of it comes from Frank Ellsworth telling of it in the 1970s such as this: https://ia801304.us.archive.org/20/items/nsia-OswaldLeeHarveyFalse/nsia-OswaldLeeHarveyFalse/Oswald Lee H False 105.pdf ("Immediately after the assassination, when Ellsworth was called to a police interrogation room to question Oswald about the rifle found in his supposed assassin's nest..."). That may have been at around the same time Fri afternoon, Nov 22, or a little before or a little after, Roger Craig showed up in that same office of Fritz where Oswald was. Yet nothing is known of that Ellsworth-Oswald interaction other than Ellsworth telling of it.  

Practically no JFK assassination-related records of that agency could be found at all from the early 1960s, and, it follows, none relating to Oswald ("ATF located only a handful of records ... IRS was unable to locate any ATF assassination records within its files", https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=3611#relPageId=175).

"Though Ellsworth did not testify or provide an affidavit for the Warren Commission, he was interviewed by Commission attorney Burt Griffin on 4/16/64 in Dallas" (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=203985#relPageId=2).

(4) It has seemed odd that in all of the reports of the Oswald interrogations, there is no record Oswald was asked whether he had any history of working for a US intelligence agency.

I think it is possible Oswald may have told Fritz privately someone to call who would vouch for him, and ATF may have received that call and sent someone over. ATF did send someone over--the one sent over has told of that visit--but there was no record of it.

ATF dealt with firearms, exactly the nature of activity of Oswald's mail-order purchases.

Wonder why there was no record of ATF's visit to Oswald and what was said between ATF and Oswald, on Fri Nov 22.

Could that have had anything to do with Oswald's answers to his other interrogators concerning the rifle?   

~ ~ ~

From George Evica, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11544-evica-on-dodd-and-the-rifle/

Just four months before the JFK assassination, [Connecticut] Senator [Thomas] Dodd had presided over a Senate Internal Security subcommittee investigation of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (to which, of course, Oswald belonged), calling it "...the chief public relations instrument of the Castro network in the United States."

(. . .)

While Lee Harvey Oswald was in the custody of the Dallas police and still alive on November 23rd, 1963, news reports on the FPCC stated that it had been "...the subject of a series of investigations by Congressional committees [including those of Senator Thomas Dodd] and the Justice Department over the last three years [1961-1963]."

The apparently contradictory political acts of Lee Harvey Oswald, therefore, make logical sense measured against these Dodd/Internal Security/FBI materials. Oswald had, in fact, contacted

1. the Fair Play for Cuba Committee;

2. the (anti- Communist) Socialist Workers Party, and

3. the (anti-Socialist Workers) Communist Party.

Oswald could not have set up a more consistent pattern had he been working (whether directly or indirectly) for Dodd's Senate Internal Security subcommittee.

Why was Lee Harvey Oswald, dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Marines as a known defector to the Soviet Union, reading rifle magazines at Alba's Garage in New Orleans? And why was he collecting coupons for mail-order weapons?

The Dodd connection was the answer.

Senator Thomas Dodd commanded the Senate's Juvenile Delinquency subcommittee and its interest in "gun control," specifically mail-order weapons control. Beginning in January, 1963, Dodd held committee hearings on the unrestricted delivery of weapons through the U.S. mails. One of the companies Dodd was interested in was Klein's of Chicago, and one of the weapons about whose unregulated traffic the Senate in 1963 was agitated was the Italian Mannlicher Carcano. "Hidell," of course, allegedly ordered a Mannlicher Carcano from Klein's of Chicago, reportedly found in the Texas School Book Depository on November 22nd, 1963, becoming a major part of the FBI/Warren Commission lone-assassin theory in the JFK killing.

Seaport Traders of California was still another mail-order weapons' distributor the Dodd Committee was examining, the very company from which "Hidell" ordered the revolver reported to have been used in the Tippet murder on November 22nd, 1963.

(. . .)

A "Communist," pro-Castro, Fair Play for Cuba Committee member with ties to both the Communist and Social Workers parties had been able to order at least two lethal weapons (both of great concern to the U.S. Congress) apparently under a fake name ("Hidell") through the United States mail.

(. . .)

Beyond speculation, however, I have learned that according to two unimpeachable sources, Senator Thomas Dodd indeed caused at least one Mannlicher Carcano to be ordered in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (or in the name of "Alek Hidell") sometime in 1963.

(. . .)

Paul Hoch anticipated some of the analysis in the present study: "...Oswald [might have] thought he was placing the gun orders as part of [the Dodd]...effort, on the instructions of whoever he was working for." Echoes of Conspiracy, 11/30/77, page 3.  

Edited October 19, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Marcus Fuller]

19 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Plus, if Oswald's paper bag contained merely his lunch, then why didn't Lee fold down the bag after he put his lunch inside of it? Don't tell me a cheese sandwich and an apple took up 27 inches of space? Remember, the amount of the bag that was visible on the back seat of Frazier's 1954 Chevy, according to Frazier's own observations, was measured and was found to be about 27 inches (per Frazier's own estimate).

 

Did Frazier specifically mention that only 27" of the bag was ever visible to him or that the only space available for the bag was 27"? 

[David Von Pein]

49 minutes ago, Marcus Fuller said:

Did Frazier specifically mention that only 27" of the bag was ever visible to him or that the only space available for the bag was 27"? 

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 10/16/2023 at 10:01 PM, Pat Speer said:

 

As far as Fritz...I wish I could find the source, but I remember reading somewhere that the character Hank Quinlan in the classic film Touch of Evil was based on Fritz--a bachelor, with no life outside his job, who was a marginal detective with a great conviction record, due to his interrogation "skills", which quite often led to confessions, which were frequently helped along by falsified evidence. IOW, he would "magnify" the amount of evidence against a suspect he assumed was guilty in order to elicit a confession. Assuming as much, we can only assume his right-hand in this was Lt. Day.  

 

Could it be you're a little confused here ? The making of the film Touch of Evil was (technically) inspired by the Fritz Lang's film noir movies (M. and others).

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Could it be you're a little confused here ? The making of the film Touch of Evil was (technically) inspired by the Fritz Lang's film noir movies (M. and others).

It was based on a book, Badge of Evil, written by two San Diego residents. It would seem they based the setting on a real city. But was Hank Quinlan based upon a real person? I remember reading something stating Quinlan was based on Fritz. But, unfortunately, I have never been able to find it after realizing its possible importance. 

[Greg Doudna]

On 10/16/2023 at 7:24 PM, David Von Pein said:

No.

Do you consider all who argued for the innocence of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, in the infamous Dreyfus Affair, conspiracy theorists?

What do you see as the difference in principle?

[Greg Doudna]

On 10/17/2023 at 1:47 PM, David Von Pein said:

That latter part about Oswald using Michael Paine's car is, in my opinion, a preposterous story. (For one thing, why would Lee want to drag his wife and two tiny children with him to the Irving Sports Shop? For what purpose would they be needed on such a journey?)

https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf

[Greg Doudna]

On 10/17/2023 at 5:29 PM, David Von Pein said:

Greg D.,

Can you confirm for a fact that the Irving Sports Shop was even open for business on Monday, November 11, 1963?

It was, after all, a federal holiday (Veterans Day).

https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf (!)

[Greg Doudna]

On 10/17/2023 at 1:47 PM, David Von Pein said:

In any event, your entire "November 11" theory is nothing but 100% guesswork and speculation on your part, and you've got a HUGE hurdle to climb if you really expect anyone here to believe that Lee Oswald REALLY had his "lunch" in that large-ish paper sack on 11/22. Because if that was the case, then we've got no choice but to paint Buell Frazier as a major story-teller (l-i-a-r) with regard to TWO key aspects of his post-assassination story and testimony ---

1. The part about Lee telling Buell that the package contained curtain rods (a very silly thing for Oswald to say, of course, if the bag really had a sandwich and an apple in it).

2. And the part of Buell's story where he says he specifically ASKED Oswald about his lunch that morning (Nov. 22), with Oswald telling Frazier that he was going to buy his lunch that day.

David, what is this business about saying I am painting Buell Frazier as a l-i-a-r on those two points. I clearly did not and do not, I said clearly in my opening of this thread that I judge Buell Frazier to be honest and credible, including on those two points. 

Whereas I believe Buell Frazier is credible, It is you who must find Buell Frazier to be not credible in order to make the 26-27" paper bag that Buell Frazier credibly insisted was its length, into the 38" paper bag also associated with Oswald found on the 6th floor. You have no witness for identification of those two bags as the same. You have no forensic evidence for identification of those two bags as the same. You have a story, a theory, a possibility (that Buell Frazier and Linnie Frazier both seriously and persistently insisted on a shorter length by mistake, or conspired to mutually deceive on the point, in exact agreement with each other, whichever it was that you suppose). I am not disputing that you have a theory, a narrative. But you do not have proof that those two paper bags were the same, in terms of either witness or material evidence. 

If you respond, please do so to me, who accepts and stipulates that both the 38" paper bag, and the rifle, were or had been Oswald's, not at issue with me. (I don't want you attacking what others say in your response to me.)