Rob Reiner talks about two Oswalds

[Leslie Sharp]

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Thanks for these posts, Leslie.  I read Mr. Russell’s book so long ago I’ve forgotten many of the details,  but your observations indicating Oswald should have at least known, uh, something was up are interesting, and begs the question, What was he told to keep him inside the building that day and just before leaving the TSBD ?

Late last year, Len Osanic located and released a 1966 interview of Vicki Adams by Mort Sahl and and Mark Lane,  Toward the very end of the interview, Adams confirmed that Shelley and Lovelady were are the bottom of the rear staircase just a minute or so after the shots were fired.  Our bet is that Shelley gave Oswald (the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby) his final instructions, and two torn dollar bills to help identify a non-existent “contact” at the theater.

The Warren Committee lawyers seemed uncomfortable with Vicki Lawrence’s encounter with Shelley and Lovelady.
 

 

You raise some other interesting questions that I’ll try to study a little more.  One thing my aging brain can’t seem to recall at the moment:  Is there credible evidence Oswald claimed to be “out front with Shelley” somewhere other than in the dubious “Fritz’s notes?”
 

Rereading Shelley's WC testimony; he doesn't say Oswald joined him "out front" or any other location; in fact he doesn't mention LHO in his brief timeline of the actual assassination at all.  Now, does that suggest he had been instructed to not provide Oswald with an alibi? Or was Oswald inside.  

No doubt ROKC, if they're paying attention, will weigh in with updates on what else Shelley might have said.  I'm genuinely interested to know if he revised his recollection at any juncture.

Fritz's notes were the object of dispute as I recall; I challenged the prayer men's interpretation. ["My daddy" - fifth+ gen. Texan was of that vintage and ilk, and I thought I was more qualified.]

 

[Roger Odisio]

12 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Rereading Shelley's WC testimony; he doesn't say Oswald joined him "out front" or any other location; in fact he doesn't mention LHO in his brief timeline of the actual assassination at all.  Now, does that suggest he had been instructed to not provide Oswald with an alibi? Or was Oswald inside.  

No doubt ROKC, if they're paying attention, will weigh in with updates on what else Shelley might have said.  I'm genuinely interested to know if he revised his recollection at any juncture.

Fritz's notes were the object of dispute as I recall; I challenged the prayer men's interpretation. ["My daddy" - fifth+ gen. Texan was of that vintage and ilk, and I thought I was more qualified.]

 

Shelley's testimony suggests nothing at all, other than he was going to go along with what they wanted him to say.  It was April 7, 1964 when he testified to Ball.  Oswald was long dead; there would be no trial and it was clear Oswald was the guy the authorities had fingered for the murder. Shelley was not going to provide Oswald with an alibi.  Even if he had seen Oswald on the steps.

[Leslie Sharp]

14 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Shelley's testimony suggests nothing at all, other than he was going to go along with what they wanted him to say.  It was April 7, 1964 when he testified to Ball.  Oswald was long dead; there would be no trial and it was clear Oswald was the guy the authorities had fingered for the murder. Shelley was not going to provide Oswald with an alibi.  Even if he had seen Oswald on the steps.

On cue!  🙂. Seriously, Roger, are you arguing that Shelley lied under testimony?  Say it isn't so!

What is your take on Shelley's role as Oswald's on-site control for the agency?

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

On cue!  🙂. Seriously, Roger, are you arguing that Shelley lied under testimony?  Say it isn't so!

What is your take on Shelley's role as Oswald's on-site control for the agency?

Actually I didn't say Shelley lied.  I said he told them what they wanted to hear. And as we know, Ball and Belin typically made it known to witnesses what it was they wanted to hear,and what they wanted to cover, before the official testimony started.

[Leslie Sharp]

1 minute ago, Roger Odisio said:

Actually I didn't say Shelley lied.  I said he told them what they wanted to hear. And as we know, Ball and Belin typically made it known to witnesses what it was they wanted to hear,and what they wanted to cover, before the official testimony started.

Sounds to me like a lie of omission.

Let's not give Shelley a pass. Let's address the salient question: was Oswald "out front with Shelley," "with Shelley out front," or neither?  This touches on the cornerstone of Prayer Man, does it not?

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Sounds to me like a lie of omission.

Let's not give Shelley a pass. Let's address the salient question: was Oswald "out front with Shelley," "with Shelley out front," or neither?  This touches on the cornerstone of Prayer Man, does it not?

No, it's not a lie of omission, either.  Surely you know how the testimonies worked. WC staff's job was to frame Oswald, not find out what happened.

They were gathering information that would help them do that, and ignoring or discarding everything else.  

They knew what Oswald's alibi was. There was no reason to ask a friendly witness like Shelley if he saw Oswald on the steps.

With Vickie Adams, for example, Belin went through a mock interview first and then told her she must answer everything he was going to ask for real exactly as she just had.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

56 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

No, it's not a lie of omission, either.  Surely you know how the testimonies worked. WC staff's job was to frame Oswald, not find out what happened.

They were gathering information that would help them do that, and ignoring or discarding everything else.  

They knew what Oswald's alibi was. There was no reason to ask a friendly witness like Shelley if he saw Oswald on the steps.

With Vickie Adams, for example, Belin went through a mock interview first and then told her she must answer everything he was going to ask for real exactly as she just had.

 

I believe we're focused on separate concerns.

Of course the WC manipulated witnesses so I'm not challenging your position. I'm equally if not more concerned with witnesses they didn't call -- primarily SA Bard Odum.

But Ball also gave Shelley an opportunity to mention that Oswald was outside, whether Ball was being performative or not.

Either Shelley was under duress prior to taking the stand (is that what you're arguing?) or he chose to lie by omission of his own volition which prompts my question, again: did Shelley later revise his version of events to conform with Oswald's alleged claim he was "out front with Shelley"? If so, is there a citation? I'm not finding one so far on MFF. 

[Ron Bulman]

The Ubiquitous Bard.  Is this his only official statement to the Warren Omission?

AFFIDAVIT OF BARDWELL D. ODUM (jfk-assassination.net)

[Leslie Sharp]

5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

The Ubiquitous Bard.  Is this his only official statement to the Warren Omission?

AFFIDAVIT OF BARDWELL D. ODUM (jfk-assassination.net)

Unless you count his statement about TT. You might review Bill Simpich on MFF who may have provided updates since the major document releases. I haven't searched recently.

 

Kudos to the late Raymond Gallagher for recognizing patterns. Why would one SA be assigned to such a vast swath of the investigation? Containment would be my guess.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/26/2024 at 11:07 PM, Leslie Sharp said:

Or did Oswald lie about being outside with Shelley? Didn't Shelley later corroborate his claim? Did Oswald realize he was set up and decided to drag Shelly into the mix?  I don't recall Shelley's specific testimony but perhaps someone else following the thread will weigh in.

 

The bulk of the evidence shows that Oswald claimed in his interrogation to be outside with Shelley. This is recorded not only in Fritz's handwritten notes but also in one of the interrogation reports. Agent Hosty's corroborating handwritten note, that Oswald claimed to be outside watching the P. Parade, was found by Malcolm Blunt and Bart Kamp a few years ago.

There really is no reason NOT to believe that Oswald said this in his interrogation.

If one takes that to be factual (that Oswald said it), then the interrogation report has a timing issue, in that it indicates Oswald had his 2nd floor encounter with Officer Baker, and AFTERWORD ate lunch. Which is wrong. If you remove the sentence about the 2nd floor encounter, then the timing issue is resolved and everything makes sense. Including Fritz's note agreeing with Hosty's.

All in all, it is HIGHLY likely that the 2nd floor encounter never occurred. Recall also that Baker himself never mentioned the encounter himself in his early statement, even though he knew that Oswald was the prime suspect.

The bottom line is that, if one considers that the 2nd floor encounter was a fabrication added to discredit Vickie Adams (whose testimony indicates no Oswald coming down the steps from the sniper's nest), then ALL the statements make sense. Otherwise there are a lot of contradictions.

Conclusion: The 2nd floor Oswald/Baker encounter never happened. Oswald's alibi was that he was outside watching the P. Parade with Bill Shelley. Oswald's alibi was covered up... probably so that the public wouldn't spend a great deal of energy looking for Oswald in photographs and films. The (fabricated) official narrative is that Oswald's alibi was that he was inside on the first floor.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Either Shelley was under duress prior to taking the stand (is that what you're arguing?) or he chose to lie by omission of his own volition which prompts my question, again: did Shelley later revise his version of events to conform with Oswald's alleged claim he was "out front with Shelley"? If so, is there a citation? I'm not finding one so far on MFF.

 

I believe that Shelley, Lovelady, and Frazier all saw Oswald out on the steps and that they were all under pressure to keep their mouths shut. I believe that that is the reason they were chosen to provide the fake WC testimony they wanted to hear. Although they were all allowed to hedge their testimonies, to help ease their consciences. For example, Frazier was allowed to suggest that the bag was too short to hold a gun.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

@Jim Hargrove rejects the notion that Oswald would be allowed by his handler to be outside during the shooting, given that he was the designated patsy.

My study of the Mexico City shenanigans recorded in the Lopez Report and related documents, as well as David Joseph's report on the faked bus trips into and out of MC, has led me to believe the same as what many other researchers (like Peter Dale Scott and Jim DiEugenio) believe, and that is that the purpose of MC was to paint Oswald as being in cahoots with Cuba and Russia for the purpose of assassinating Kennedy. This would provide pretext for invasion of Cuba, if not a nuclear first strike on Russia, as some generals were advocating.

Where my belief may differ from others' is that Oswald wasn't painted as a gunman, but rather as a ringleader. The early evidence, which was quickly swept under the rug, was that (fake) Oswald traveled to Mexico City by CAR with others. This was covered up and the bus trip substituted because the former suggested a conspiracy. And the Johnson Administration was actively covering up any suggestion of a conspiracy from the very first day.

Oswald, as a PATSY RINGLEADER (not shooter), didn't need to be anywhere in particular on 11/22. Outside with Bill Shelley watching the P. Parade was perfectly fine with the assassination plotters.

BTW, this would also explain the existence of a Mauser in the sniper's nest, only to be replaced by the coverup artists with a gun of their choosing... one whose provenance could not be revealed by the plotters, should they decide to do so.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Sandy,

But so much of the setup seemed to target Oswald as a lone shooter.  For example:

“Lee Harvey Oswald” trying to buy the four rifles even at inflated prices from Castro’s friend Robert McKeown.  You certainly could think “ringleader” when he tried to purchase four rifles, but the rest of the frame-up evidence suggests a single rifle at play.

The Oswald look-alike making numerous appearances at the Sports Drome rifle range.

The whole Morgan’s Gun Shop charade—a single rifle.

The Irving Furniture Mart play in which “Oswald” and “family” are ostensibly looking for a gun part for a single rifle.

The Ralph Leon Yates curtain rod story, describing a package which surely could only have carried a single rifle.

The brown paper package, containing a folded brown paper bag open at both ends, which was mailed to “Lee Oswald” before the assassination and was surely intended to get Harvey Oswald’s fingerprints on it.

Then, of course, there are all those accounts of the brown-shirted and white-shirted Oswalds inside the TSBD, as well as the Great Escape so amazingly anticipated by U.S.  Army employee Stuart Reed. Why would a “ringleader” need a desperate escape?

Bill Shelley (with Lovelady) was stationed at the bottom of the rear staircase of TSBD surely to give Oswald final instructions—and probably two torn dollar bills to match with a “contact” that never existed at the TSBD.  If Oswald was truly being framed as a “ringleader” but not the shooter, why bother with all of this?

The throw-down wallet at 10th and Patton pointed to just one fellow.  Why would a  “ringleader” need a sudden escape and then feel he need to shoot a cop?  I think the evidence shows that Oswald was framed as the lone shooter.  Bringing others into it would only increase the chances of discovering the plot.  No doubt there is more evidence for this that I'm forgetting.

[Joe Bauer]

As I've mentioned many times before, if it could be "proved" that Shelley was involved with Oswald beyond simply their Texas School Book Depository employee/supervisor relationship the whole case would be ripped wide open.

One day I hope to get lucky with a financial windfall and find the most reputable "facial recognition" technology group to take a thorough analysis look at the photo of Oswald handing out leaflets in front of the New Orleans Trade Mart building in the Summer of 1963.

The photo that depicts a fellow behind Oswald that looks so much like Shelley it's worth a facial recognition technology look imo.

The facial recognition science had advanced so much now, the FBI has used it to find and identify many of the participants of the violent insurrection who broke into our Capital Building on January 6, 2021 and tried to hide from justice.

Even those whose faces were partially covered with masks! 

The technology works so well, government security entities here and all over the world are paying millions of dollars to utilize it and have for some time now.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Where my belief may differ from others' is that Oswald wasn't painted as a gunman, but rather as a ringleader.

 

2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

But so much of the setup seemed to target Oswald as a lone shooter.  For example:

“Lee Harvey Oswald” trying to buy the four rifles even at inflated prices from Castro’s friend Robert McKeown.  You certainly could think “ringleader” when he tried to purchase four rifles, but the rest of the frame-up evidence suggests a single rifle at play.

The Oswald look-alike making numerous appearances at the Sports Drome rifle range.

The whole Morgan’s Gun Shop charade—a single rifle.

The Irving Furniture Mart play in which “Oswald” and “family” are ostensibly looking for a gun part for a single rifle.

The Ralph Leon Yates curtain rod story, describing a package which surely could only have carried a single rifle.

The brown paper package, containing a folded brown paper bag open at both ends, which was mailed to “Lee Oswald” before the assassination and was surely intended to get Harvey Oswald’s fingerprints on it.

 

These are all examples of an assassination ringleader checking out rifles for his gunmen.

The plotters had no reason to make Oswald look like the shooter. What they cared about was Cuba and Russia being blamed for the killing. Oswald's real purpose was to be a link between the killing and the communists, so that the investigative authorities would ultimately blame the communists.

 

2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Then, of course, there are all those accounts of the brown-shirted and white-shirted Oswalds inside the TSBD, as well as the Great Escape so amazingly anticipated by U.S.  Army employee Stuart Reed. Why would a “ringleader” need a desperate escape?

 

I don't know if Oswald took the bus or if he left in a Rambler. Maybe one of the gunmen took the bus. If so, maybe it was a decoy gunman. It's a mystery.

Regardless, even a ringleader wouldn't want to be caught.

 

2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Bill Shelley (with Lovelady) was stationed at the bottom of the rear staircase of TSBD surely to give Oswald final instructions—and probably two torn dollar bills to match with a “contact” that never existed at the TSBD.  If Oswald was truly being framed as a “ringleader” but not the shooter, why bother with all of this?

 

Well, that is a belief of yours that I don't share.

 

2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The throw-down wallet at 10th and Patton pointed to just one fellow.  Why would a  “ringleader” need a sudden escape and then feel he need to shoot a cop?  

 

Because even a ringleader wouldn't want to be imprisoned or get the electric chair.

 

2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I think the evidence shows that Oswald was framed as the lone shooter.

 

Okay, but I don't.

 

2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Bringing others into it would only increase the chances of discovering the plot.

 

But there WERE others... the real gunmen who killed Kennedy.

My theory brings in only a few character, and they were all fictional!