Rob Reiner talks about two Oswalds

[Jim Hargrove]

OK, Sandy, we'll just have to agree to disagree about some of these details.  I assume you and I agree that the Oswald Project was a creation of U.S. Intel, and that Oswald was framed in order to blame the assassination of JFK on communist Cuba/and or Russia.  

[Jim Hargrove]

54 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

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.

 

Isn't that the truth?  I couldn't agree more, with one caveat.

Even the best technology can be misrepresented and misused.  One of the first things John A. taught me many years ago was, when seeking expert evidence, try to conceal the fact that the evidence concerns "Lee Harvey Oswald."

For example, when I sent copies of the high-quality blow-ups John had made of Oswald's  teen-age W-2 forms to IBM archivist Dawn Stamford, John cautioned me to black out the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" on each of the three forms because, as John put it, "strange things happen when you start to research Oswald."  (The archivist, by the way, said that in her opinion all three forms from different employers were typed on the same machine, which she said, on close inspection, had an odd font that she could not match, despite thousands of different font examples in her files.) 

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

OK, Sandy, we'll just have to agree to disagree about some of these details.  I assume you and I agree that the Oswald Project was a creation of U.S. Intel, and that Oswald was framed in order to blame the assassination of JFK on communist Cuba/and or Russia.  

 

Absolutely. I am a believer in the H&L theory... however, I'm not convinced that the LEE Oswald from New Orleans was always HARVEY'S double after HARVEY'S time in Russia. I kinda think that there were a number of doubles.

HARVEY'S double in Mexico City was blond and short.

 

[Joe Bauer]

20 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Isn't that the truth?  I couldn't agree more, with one caveat.

Even the best technology can be misrepresented and misused.  One of the first things John A. taught me many years ago was, when seeking expert evidence, try to conceal the fact that the evidence concerns "Lee Harvey Oswald."

For example, when I sent copies of the high-quality blow-ups John had made of Oswald's  teen-age W-2 forms to IBM archivist Dawn Stamford, John cautioned me to black out the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" on each of the three forms because, as John put it, "strange things happen when you start to research Oswald."  (The archivist, by the way, said that in her opinion all three forms from different employers were typed on the same machine, which she said, on close inspection, had an odd font that she could not match, despite thousands of different font examples in her files.) 

Excellent advice.

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Absolutely. I am a believer in the H&L theory... however, I'm not convinced that the LEE Oswald from New Orleans was always HARVEY'S double after HARVEY'S time in Russia. I kinda think that there were a number of doubles.

HARVEY'S double in Mexico City was blond and short.

Anyone knowledgeable about all this might see little evidence that the other Oswald running around Dallas doing incriminating things in the weeks before the assassination was in fact named “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

But the best evidence connecting American-born Oswald to Dallas in 1963 comes via Jack Ruby, who himself appears to have been far more involved in the assassination of JFK than most of us previously thought.  There is simply a trainload of evidence that American-born Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby worked together.

Way back in the New York Journal American of June 6, 1964, Dorothy Kilgallen wrote: “It is known that 10 persons have signed sworn depositions to the Warren Commission that they knew Oswald and Ruby to have been acquainted.”

Several of the girls at the Carousel Club said Ruby knew Oswald, and so did quite a few other people.

To see some of the sheer volume of evidence that Ruby and Oswald worked together, go about halfway down this page on my website and start reading below the photo above.

https://harveyandlee.net/Ruby/Ruby.html

And how do we know this was American-born Lee Oswald and not Russian speaking Harvey Oswald at Ruby’s club doing all kinds of errands?  Because these errands often involved driving cars, and only Lee Oswald had a valid Texas drivers license.  See the evidence at the page linked above.

I also have never understood the short, blond Oswald in Mexico City.  Someone didn’t even seem to be trying.

[Greg Doudna]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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, this business of large-scale subornation to perjury of civilian witnesses spontaneously after the fact, adhered to for life by those suborned and without a single document or confession ever having come to light in all this time telling of such organized subornation of civilian witnesses to perjury, just seems far-fetched. Does it not give you pause that no witness has ever credibly later told of this kind of organized subornation to perjury—such a serious scandal if it ever were to be credibly accused—that you and others seem to promiscuously invoke as a way of reconciling testimony which conflicts with a reconstruction?

For example, when you say “Frazier was allowed to suggest that the bag was too short to hold a gun” as a concession to him to ease his conscience (over agreeing to be suborned to lie about other things which he knew was wrong), who do you mean exactly who “allowed” him or gave him permission on that back then? Who was running this subornation to perjury of Frazier of which you speak? Name? Agency? Please be specific? 

Do you believe Frazier today, sixty years later, is still under the control of someone whose permission he would need if he were to change his story?

Does that really make sense to you? That Frazier is not free today to say whatever he feels like?

Also, all the stories from officers who knew of Buell Frazier’s polygraph the night of Nov 22 said Frazier turned up truthful under that questioning. Have you factored that into your belief that Frazier was being compelled to fabricate testimony by a handler? And again, who do you think that handler was then, and today? 

I don’t think Buell Frazier had any such handler suborning him to perjury. I think he is credible and honest and a decent man and always has been. He would respond to someone official telling him to lie the same way he responded to Fritz’s bullying attempt to get him to confess, by refusal even under duress. That is who Buell Frazier was, and is. 

As I just wrote on the Ralph Yates thread—and I know my post is long there but I can’t help that, the content is important—Frazier did not invent either the existence of nor did he err on the length of the bag carried by Oswald to work Fri Nov 22, and this is one of the most critical points going to the matter of Oswald’s guilt or innocence there is. 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Anyone knowledgeable about all this might see little evidence that the other Oswald running around Dallas doing incriminating things in the weeks before the assassination was in fact named “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

But the best evidence connecting American-born Oswald to Dallas in 1963 comes via Jack Ruby, who himself appears to have been far more involved in the assassination of JFK than most of us previously thought.  There is simply a trainload of evidence that American-born Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby worked together.

Way back in the New York Journal American of June 6, 1964, Dorothy Kilgallen wrote: “It is known that 10 persons have signed sworn depositions to the Warren Commission that they knew Oswald and Ruby to have been acquainted.”

Several of the girls at the Carousel Club said Ruby knew Oswald, and so did quite a few other people.

To see some of the sheer volume of evidence that Ruby and Oswald worked together, go about halfway down this page on my website and start reading below the photo above.

https://harveyandlee.net/Ruby/Ruby.html

And how do we know this was American-born Lee Oswald and not Russian speaking Harvey Oswald at Ruby’s club doing all kinds of errands?  Because these errands often involved driving cars, and only Lee Oswald had a valid Texas drivers license.  See the evidence at the page linked above.

I also have never understood the short, blond Oswald in Mexico City.  Someone didn’t even seem to be trying.

 

Jim,

I think it's possible that the CIA may have later on chosen another man (or men) to be Oswald's double... one who looked more like HARVEY than LEE did. Because, you know that HARVEY and LEE probably didn't look very much like each other after growing up.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

32 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy, this business of large-scale subornation to perjury of civilian witnesses spontaneously after the fact, adhered to for life by those suborned and without a single document or confession ever having come to light in all this time telling of such organized subornation of civilian witnesses to perjury, just seems far-fetched. Does it not give you pause that no witness has ever credibly later told of this kind of organized subornation to perjury—such a serious scandal if it ever were to be credibly accused—that you and others seem to promiscuously invoke as a way of reconciling testimony which conflicts with a reconstruction?

For example, when you say “Frazier was allowed to suggest that the bag was too short to hold a gun” as a concession to him to ease his conscience (over agreeing to be suborned to lie about other things which he knew was wrong), who do you mean exactly who “allowed” him or gave him permission on that back then? Who was running this subornation to perjury of Frazier of which you speak? Name? Agency? Please be specific? 

Do you believe Frazier today, sixty years later, is still under the control of someone whose permission he would need if he were to change his story?

Does that really make sense to you? That Frazier is not free today to say whatever he feels like?

Also, all the stories from officers who knew of Buell Frazier’s polygraph the night of Nov 22 said Frazier turned up truthful under that questioning. Have you factored that into your belief that Frazier was being compelled to fabricate testimony by a handler? And again, who do you think that handler was then, and today? 

I don’t think Buell Frazier had any such handler suborning him to perjury. I think he is credible and honest and a decent man and always has been. He would respond to someone official telling him to lie the same way he responded to Fritz’s bullying attempt to get him to confess, by refusal even under duress. That is who Buell Frazier was, and is. 

As I just wrote on the Ralph Yates thread—and I know my post is long there but I can’t help that, the content is important—Frazier did not invent either the existence of nor did he err on the length of the bag carried by Oswald to work Fri Nov 22, and this is one of the most critical points going to the matter of Oswald’s guilt or innocence there is. 

 

Greg,

I think it is HIGHLY likely that a few TSBD employees know for a fact that Oswald did not shoot at Kennedy. Because they happened to see him when he was supposed to be in the sniper's nest.

So, yes, of course those people have been convinced they must take that information to their graves.

People like you and Pat Speer seem to have trouble accepting that a coverup of a middle-of-the-day, middle-of-a-crowd event is going to require a good deal of evidence and eyewitness alteration. I find it astonishing that you guys think that way.

Because of your refusal to accept all that tampering, you are forced to come up with all kinds of convoluted pretzel-logic explanations for things that you can't otherwise understand. For me, the answer usually comes pretty easy after I familiarize myself with the known facts. If the evidence calls for an alteration, then alteration it is!

Once things start falling into place, it becomes easier and easier to figure things out. Sometimes there is literally only one possible explanation for something. For example, Oswald's handler had to have instructed him to take a job at the TSBD. Because he had to be working there in order to play his role as patsy for the shooting. The plotters certainly wouldn't have left that up to chance. Roy Truly must have similarly been instructed to hire Oswald. Well then, for Truly to be taking instructions like that, he must necessarily have been CIA, like Oswald was.

When you think about it, there surely had to be preparation in the TSBD for the shooters to get into and especially out of the building. How could the plotters get that done? Either the building owner or manager must have been CIA, or the business was a CIA front. I choose the latter for reasons I won't go into.

If it's true that Ruth Paine called Truly for Oswald, then she must be CIA. Unless somebody can tell me how the plotters got her to do that.

As for Frazier and the others who knew Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy, that's a somewhat different situation. Oswald, Truly, and Ruth were controlled by the CIA plotters. In contrast, Frazier, Shelley, and Lovelady were controlled by the coverup artists... elements of the Warren Commission and FBI. Those witnesses had to be convinced to keep secret that they had seen Oswald on the steps (or on the first floor) during the shooting. I can only guess what speech they were given and by whom. I think it was probably a patriotic speech given by some authority figure... maybe even LBJ himself. He would tell them that there was evidence of the assassination being an international incident, and that Oswald was involved. But that the government needed to keep it quiet, for fear that it could lead to WW3 and the possible use of nuclear weapons.

Apparently you believe that nobody saw Oswald when he was supposed to be in the sniper's nest. Let me ask you this... had there been witnesses to Oswald not being in a position to shoot Kennedy, how do you think the government would have handled it? Do you honestly believe they would have then given up on the idea of blaming Oswald? If so, what then? Do you think they would have changed their minds and tried to find out who in the CIA was behind the assassination? And allowed the American public to know that they suspected our CIA had pulled off a coup d'etat against its own president?

Do you think, that they thought, the American people could "handle the truth? "

I don't.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

What if Shelley played a role as Oswald's direct contact in the depository and required no pressure to keep his mouth shut during testimony. He doesn't need to be a CIA agent or anything other than a sometime intel asset (FBI?) or temporary employee.

Playing devil's advocate, isn't it reasonable to consider that instead of ensuring Oswald remained inside — which in fact would send up alarms to a completely unsuspecting Lee — someone like Shelley was in place to contain anything that might contradict the assertion Lee was in the building at the time of the assassination.  In other words, just omit any reference to Oswald at all during testimony about events outside the building let alone the suggestion he was standing in the same area, i.e. "out with Bill Shelley in front," and simply perpetuate the confusion long enough to solidify Oswald's alleged guilt as the lone assassin in the public mind.

From there, does anyone know whether Bookhout and SA Bard Odum ever worked in tandem on the investigation? We know that Odum and Hosty ended up together by  evening of November 22.

From the ROKC way back machine, 

claims 2nd floor coke when

 off came in

to 1st floor had lunch

  out with Bill Shelley in

  front

 

1. Bill Shelley ate half of his lunch in his office and left the rest for later. He didn't eat lunch out on the steps.

2. Bookhout's solo report doesn't reflect the interpretation of Sean's fracturing of Fritz's notes. It reads:" he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police office came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took his Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employee lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley and thereafter went home."

If Fritz copied Bookhout's notes, why do we break Fritz's phrases mid-line, to come up with something that doesn't match Bookhout's report which was based on his notes? — Goban_Saor

*. *  *

Bookhout did make notes -- and Fritz said he basically started covering his own upsized backside almost straight away, so he may well have got to see them before they were destroyed. Alternatively, Fritz used Boohout's and/or the official reports of others as a guide to writing his own. — Greg Parker

Edited January 28 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Absolutely. I am a believer in the H&L theory... however, I'm not convinced that the LEE Oswald from New Orleans was always HARVEY'S double after HARVEY'S time in Russia. I kinda think that there were a number of doubles.

HARVEY'S double in Mexico City was blond and short.

 

Could OSWALD have been an acronym or code for a project not dissimilar to QJ/WIN or WIROGUE?

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think it is HIGHLY likely that a few TSBD employees know for a fact that Oswald did not shoot at Kennedy. Because they happened to see him when he was supposed to be in the sniper's nest.

So, yes, of course those people have been convinced they must take that information to their graves.

Granted there could have been one or more witnesses who had exculpatory witness knowledge of Oswald and never spoke of it, though none known. But your idea that the govt got to them all doesn’t make sense. First, if they never spoke of it at the time, how would your govt handlers know to suborn perjury from them? They would not know who saw what.

Second, if there was suppression of unwelcome testimony of that nature it would happen by familiar prosecutors methods of not calling witnesses, discrediting their credibility, and so forth, rather than widespread subornation to perjury of civilian witnesses which is not a common prosecutors phenomenon. No evidence for what you are supposing in any direct sense in those witnesses then (as there would be if it was happening on the scale you supposing), and the risks would be high in terms of suborned witnesses’ willingness to do so, keeping stories straight, later risk of blackmail or whistleblower telling of it, pangs of conscience, risk of it becoming known, need for lifelong monitoring of subornees who could go rogue.

And if a credible witness came forward exculpating Oswald as shooter who could not be marginalized through known techniques to not contradict the narrative, yes a different narrative might need to be framed, just as in any prosecutors office. Something like that appears to have already happened within the first hours, when a blame-Castro multiple conspirators setup fell through and a shift to a very different narrative, Oswald alone, took its place.

You did not address the question about who specifically you suppose suborned perjury from Buell Frazier then, within the first hours after the assassination, and do you think Buell Frazier has a handler six decades later today whose permission he must seek preventing him from speaking freely and truthfully in the year 2024. 

And you did not address the matter of not one case in all this time of one of these many suborned witnesses you suppose, having come forward and told that happened. If what you are supposing happened with large-scale civilian witness subornation to perjury, with never-identified unseen handlers working random civilian witnesses like marionette puppets on strings with scripted rehearsed perjured stories taught and controlled … for life … that would be known. It doesn’t pass the smell test that in 1963, if that was happening as you invoke as a magic solution to perceived ancient discrepancies in scenario reconstructions, would not have come to light. 

You continually invoke a WW3 fear and appeal to patriotism as how subornation to perjury would have been agreed to by civilian witnesses then. But that doesn’t account for later decades continuing not to tell. The Cold War is long over. There is no threat of nuclear war if witnesses or participants told of subornation to perjury in 1963, or that they had evidence of Oswald’s exculpation. Your mechanism works only fleetingly temporary at best then, does not explain zero evidence of organized large-scale suborning of perjury happening then with 100 percent compliance of multiple civilian witnesses over the next sixty years, no deathbed confession, nothing. 

Why do you suppose Buell Frazier was “allowed” by a handler to say the package Oswald took to work Fri Nov 22 was only ca. 27 inches? 

What have you got against him saying that because that is what it was, 27 inch curtain rods? No alleged handler’s permission needed, simply a credible truthful Buell Frazier. Have you read my writeup on that on the Yates’ hitchhiker thread? 

[Jim Hargrove]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

I think it's possible that the CIA may have later on chosen another man (or men) to be Oswald's double... one who looked more like HARVEY than LEE did. Because, you know that HARVEY and LEE probably didn't look very much like each other after growing up.

No doubt that’s possible, especially if the facial aging expert blew it back in the day.  There is, though, a steady stream of evidence for two LHOs dating back more than a decade from the assassination.  It’s surprisingly unbroken.

BTW, in a couple of days I’ll have to take a week or so off from the Ed Forum for some family matters.  It would be an excellent time for the anti-H&L folk to come back and for at least the ten thousandth time declare Total Victory over the Harvey & Lee Menace®.  Maybe this time will be the charm for them!

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Granted there could have been one or more witnesses who had exculpatory witness knowledge of Oswald and never spoke of it, though none known.

 

Good! So you agree it's possible.

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

But your idea that the govt got to them all doesn’t make sense. First, if they never spoke of it at the time, how would your govt handlers know to suborn perjury from them? They would not know who saw what.

 

The people I suspect of seeing Oswald out on the TSBD steps all gave first-day statements, in which they stated when and where they saw Oswald that day. Had they said they saw Oswald on the steps, that part would have been left off their statements and they would have been strongly advised to keep their mouths shut till further notice.

Later they would have been given the patriotic talk that I mentioned before.

That's my speculation. But one way or another they would have been kept from talking.

Any other witnesses who saw Oswald outside would have been dealt with, as  they became known. As a matter of fact, in April 1964, the FBI got statements from every employee in the TSBD building that day, asking if they saw Oswald. (CE 1381).

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Second, if there was suppression of unwelcome testimony of that nature it would happen by familiar prosecutors methods of not calling witnesses, discrediting their credibility, and so forth, rather than widespread subornation to perjury of civilian witnesses which is not a common prosecutors phenomenon.

 

Do you seriously believe that witnesses who saw Oswald outside the snipers nest would have been treated so cavalierly? I certainly don't.

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

No evidence for what you are supposing in any direct sense in those witnesses then (as there would be if it was happening on the scale you supposing), and the risks would be high in terms of suborned witnesses’ willingness to do so, keeping stories straight, later risk of blackmail or whistleblower telling of it, pangs of conscience, risk of it becoming known, need for lifelong monitoring of subornees who could go rogue.

 

I said that I suspect three people saw Oswald outside. Do you consider that to be "large scale?"

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

You did not address the question about who specifically you suppose suborned perjury from Buell Frazier then, within the first hours after the assassination, and do you think Buell Frazier has a handler six decades later today whose permission he must seek preventing him from speaking freely and truthfully in the year 2024.

 

Apparently Frazier took his (possible) patriotic conversation with LBJ seriously.

But...

Even you said above, "Granted there could have been one or more witnesses who had exculpatory witness knowledge of Oswald and never spoke of it, though none known." Well, if there are one or more who haven't spoken of it in all this time, then why can't that be true for the three people I suspect of seeing Oswald?

It appears that you have a double standard on our respective beliefs, mine needing to cross a higher bar. Why is that?

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

You continually invoke a WW3 fear and appeal to patriotism as how subornation to perjury would have been agreed to by civilian witnesses then. But that doesn’t account for later decades continuing not to tell.

 

You said above, "Granted there could have been one or more witnesses who had exculpatory witness knowledge of Oswald and never spoke of it, though none known." Well, if there are one or more who haven't spoke of it in all this time, then why can't that be true for the three people I suspect of seeing Oswald?

There goes your double standard again.

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Why do you suppose Buell Frazier was “allowed” by a handler to say the package Oswald took to work Fri Nov 22 was only ca. 27 inches? 

 

Frazier was talked into lying about a large paper bag in order to help the WC explain how Oswald got a rifle into the TSBD. However, Frazier need not feel guilt over it because he essentially added to the lie that the bag was too short to carry a rifle.

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

What have you got against him saying that because that is what it was, 27 inch curtain rods? No alleged handler’s permission needed, simply a credible truthful Buell Frazier. Have you read my writeup on that on the Yates’ hitchhiker thread? 

 

You don't believe what most of us do. Oswald had no such bag. And Yates' hitchhiker wasn't Oswald.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Could OSWALD have been an acronym or code for a project not dissimilar to QJ/WIN or WIROGUE?

@Jim Hargrove knows the code word for the Oswald Project. Sorry, I don't recall what it is.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

What if Shelley played a role as Oswald's direct contact in the depository and required no pressure to keep his mouth shut during testimony. He doesn't need to be a CIA agent or anything other than a sometime intel asset (FBI?) or temporary employee.

 

I personally believe that Shelley was a CIA employee. But that doesn't mean anything with regard to the coverup. The CIA controlled the assassination plot, whereas the FBI controlled the coverup.

Who knows what Shelley would have said had somebody asked where Oswald was during the shooting. The smart thing would have been for the authorities to have The Talk with him, to keep him quiet.

 

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Playing devil's advocate, isn't it reasonable to consider that instead of ensuring Oswald remained inside — which in fact would send up alarms to a completely unsuspecting Lee — someone like Shelley was in place to contain anything that might contradict the assertion Lee was in the building at the time of the assassination.  In other words, just omit any reference to Oswald at all during testimony about events outside the building let alone the suggestion he was standing in the same area, i.e. "out with Bill Shelley in front," and simply perpetuate the confusion long enough to solidify Oswald's alleged guilt as the lone assassin in the public mind.

 

What you've suggested solves only the problem of getting the official narrative into the record. Which is fine. But it doesn't keep the witnesses of Oswald's innocence from blabbing to the neighbors and newspapers. They need to be given "The Talk" to solve that problem.