Challenging Universally Accepted Truths

[Greg Parker]

I will always defend my positions on the case until I find strong enough contrary evidence, or someone puts up a more convincing argument.

Such has happened here.

Following are the relevant portions of email exchanges with Sean Murphy, and posted with Sean's permission (Sean is taking a break from forums). The Albertson case referred to was first brought to our attention by Bob Druwing at Lancer. In 1962, Abt exposed a government witness against Albertson as being a paid FBI informant.

--------------

SM

1.

Let's start with a famous exchange in the corridor at City Hall:

REPORTER: "Did you shoot the President?"

OSWALD: "No, they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"

Oswald's reply is extremely interesting.

He uses the word 'patsy' NOT to accuse any JFK-assassinating conspirators of setting him up for the crime, but in order to accuse the DPD of pinning the crime on him AFTER THE EVENT:

They have targeted me simply because I am a known leftist who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Oswald's message to the world:

I am completely innocent of this crime.

I am being unjustly singled out by the authorities on the sole basis that I have espoused Marxist beliefs.

I am the victim of political persecution - punished not for having committed any crime but for having held the 'wrong' beliefs and having expressed these beliefs openly.

2.

Would it make sense for someone in the position in which Oswald here portrays himself to turn to Jonathan Abt or the ACLU for help?

Absolutely.

Abt & ACLU are precisely the people to turn to in cases where free speech, free belief and free association have been violated.

Oswald is doing what many Muslims targeted post-911 (and, in the UK, post-7-7) will do: turning to civil liberties groups for help, thereby framing this as a civil liberties issue rather than a 'criminal defense'.

3.

The problem, of course, is this:

Oswald almost certainly was NOT a bona fide leftist.

Thus we are tempted to conclude that his "I'm a patsy" comment is disingenuous, a mere role being played for the world's cameras.

This would mean that his asking for Abt and/or the ACLU behind closed doors would also be disingenuous and/or illogical, for they would in reality be his ideological enemies rather than his friends.

If Abt were to come to Dallas, for instance, Oswald couldn't possibly tell him the real deal about his covert activities - because he & Abt have been working for opposite sides!

These thoughts might even lead us to surmise further that Oswald never actually asked for Abt or the ACLU, but had those words put in his mouth in order to incriminate him and/or discredit Abt & ACLU.

4.

The above conclusion(s), however, may be hasty.

When Oswald says, "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union", he may actually believe EVERY WORD he is saying.

He may not actually REALISE, at least not yet, that he has been patsied BY THE ASSASSINATION CONSPIRATORS.

He may actually believe that the DPD, not being aware of his true affiliations, have INDEPENDENTLY targeted him in the false belief that he is a genuine leftist.

He may be targeting all his GENUINE anger at them, because they seem to be stitching him up for a crime, without themselves having had any part in the actual crime itself.

If this is the state of Oswald's mind when he is arrested, then he will surely conclude that there is only one strategy open to him:

Try to get out of this mess AS IF I were a genuine leftist - i.e. without blowing my cover (which would compromise any further activities I might undertake when I get out of here).

First name on my contact list: Jonathan Abt, who helped the Smith Act defendants over a decade ago.

To put this in a nutshell: Oswald may feel he is the victim of a REAL injustice, even though that injustice has been provoked by his own UNREAL role as a leftist.

5.

Let's, however, try a very different 'read' on Oswald's state of mind after he is arrested.

Let's hypothesise that he very quickly begins to suspect that he has been set up IN ADVANCE by the assassination conspirators.

But he is genuinely bewildered by the ambiguity of his situation: am I in here because of the DPD's scapegoating of a supposed leftist, or because of an elaborate pre-planned scheme to set me up for the assassination?

Or both??

This ambiguity forces him to hedge his bets:

-On the off-chance that he HASN'T been set up by his handlers, he plays the 'Persecuted Leftist' card, in the hope that Jonathan Abt OF 1949-50 SMITH ACT FAME can press the case that the DPD have rushed to judgment for ideological reasons.

-On the off-chance that he HAS been set up by his handlers, he plays the 'Limited Blowing Of Cover' gambit, in the hope that the involvement of Jonathan Abt OF 1962 ALBERTSON CASE FAME will alert RFK to the fact that the leftist in custody for the murder of his brother is no leftist at all.

6.

Thus 'Abt' becomes a double signifier:

-the man who defends persecuted leftists

-the man who exposes the role of faux-leftist informants.

7.

In custody, Oswald (allegedly) only refers to Smith-Act Abt.

This is most curious, as Oswald is almost certainly aware of Abt's CURRENT activities, most notably his defense of Gus Hall & Ben Davis, targets of the McCarran Act.

Why, only last year, Oswald himself sent a poster to the Hall-Davis Defense Committee, in the hope that it would be used for their campaign!

Yet here he is in custody, acting as if he only has a vague awareness of useful work done for the left by Abt IN THE DISTANT PAST.

Might this apparent omission on Oswald's part support the idea that he is using Smith-Act Abt as a mere pretext to involve Albertson-Case Abt?

i.e. the DPD will happily let him bring in Abt, for Abt's involvement will only bolster the image of Oswald as a commie. Little will the DPD know that Abt is a Trojan horse.

8.

The chief problem with this Albertson Case theory is that Abt seems only to have defended GENUINE leftists from accusations levelled by BOGUS leftists (i.e. FBI informants).

Oswald being a bogus leftist, how could Abt help HIM?

Only in one way: the very FACT of his involvement, rather than any legal assistance he might actually give, would send the necessary signal to RFK.

9.

Miscellaneous Thoughts: I

Fritz' notes on what Oswald said in custody.

Try the following experiment:

Go through Fritz's notes line by line with a copy of Hosty & Bookhout's interrogation reports.

You'll come to a simple conclusion:

Fritz' notes are NOT contemporaneous.

In fact they are almost completely worthless.

For they are nearly 100% derived from H&B's reports.

Clearly Fritz made these notes as he was preparing to write up his own report - MONTHS after the assassination.

They have little or nothing to do with his own recollections of what Oswald said during those hours.

If my study of the lunchroom question has taught me one thing, it's to be HIGHLY sceptical of any interrogation reports written after Oswald's death.

In terms of Oswald's alleged request for Abt, however, I am impressed by the fact that he was quoted on this while still alive. Which doesn't prove he said it, but does increase the likelihood significantly IMO.

10. Miscellaneous Thoughts: II

Did Oswald really try to contact Abt?

I think the piece of paper (allegedly) found in his pocket after his death is pretty strong evidence in favour.

On it were written the telephone numbers for

a ) Abt's office

b ) Abt's home

c ) The Worker newspaper

d ) The City of Dallas (as written on the jail phone)

Item c is rather intriguing, no? Did Oswald ring the Worker in a fruitless attempt to to get a third contact number for Abt, after failing to reach him at his office or at home??

11. Miscellaneous Thoughts: III

Why does Oswald not ask for Abt on camera?

We need to bear in mind that the midnight press conference was extremely short. Oswald is only just getting into gear when Curry calls a halt.

In the few seconds he does have he may not mention Abt by name because he may believe that lines of communication are already being opened up (by his good, Christian friend Ruth).

One thing from this conference really sticks with me. Oswald is informed by a reporter that he HAS been charged with the President's murder, upon which he reacts with an expression of sheer disgust.

It seems to me that at THIS moment he looks UP and in the direction of the right corner of the room - which is where one Jack Ruby is standing.

I am convinced Oswald is giving Ruby a fleeting look that says, "What the HELL is going on here?"

Is he awaiting extraction - and using Abt's name as a way of protecting his leftist cover in the meantime?

12. Miscellaneous Thoughts: IV

Abt for Marina?

A key part of the Smith Act was the requirement for aliens to register.

A long shot, but is it possible that Oswald wanted Abt to come to the assistance not just of himself but also of Marina?

After all, she was now suddenly in a highly vulnerable position - a Russian alien living in the USA without her husband to defend her.

Did Oswald fear that she would be deported, leaving their children effectively orphaned?

13. Miscellaneous Thoughts: V

Is it absolutely certain that Abt was NOT a member of the ACLU?

I ask in part because he signally fails to distance himself from the idea when giving testimony to the WC:

Mr. RANKIN - Mr. Abt, did you learn that Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in having you represent him apparently because of

some prior connection of yours with the American Civil Liberties Union?

Mr. ABT - No. My assumption was, and it is pure assumption, that he read about some of my representation in the press, and, therefore, it occurred to him that I might be a good .man to represent him, but that is pure assumption on my part. I have no direct knowledge of the whole matter.

14. Miscellaneous Thoughts: VI

What Did Oswald Know In Custody?

It's possible that Oswald didn't know for quite some time that he was being accused of shooting JFK.

He may have been the victim of an information blackout by Fritz & co., such that he thought he was being vaguely accused of 'having some involvement' in the assassination.

This would have obvious relevance for his (alleged) early request for Abt: as you have pointed out in the discussion, Abt was not a criminal lawyer.

Oswald may not yet have known he NEEDED a criminal lawyer.

--------------------

GP

Sean, much appreciate your reply. If this is what you can come up with while taking a break... you have no excuse for not solving the whole shebang when you decide to really apply yourself!

If LHO did ask for ACLU and ABT, then this offers the most satisfying solution as to why I've yet seen.

I've racked my brain trying to find holes in it, and all I can come up with are points I myself can counteract.

I've just had a very quick perusal of Abt's autobiography.

Here's a quote from the foreword by Margaret Burnham:

Moreover, the victims of McCarthyism often endured their ordeal without legal assistance, for the bar, its members fearful of being tainted, had vanished. Typical was the advice one lawyer his government employee client who had to undergo a loyalty hearing and wished to avoid a second one: "Drop your Negro friends and express no views whatsoever on any programs which are not generally accepted as conservative." Nor were there public interest legal organizations such as exist today to defend these civil liberties victims. The ACLU, far from defendng the Bill of Rights, was a full partner in the Red Scare. For example, it voted to reject as members anyone whose "devotion to civil liberties" was qualified by adherence to Communist... doctrine.

It was in this desolate climate of intense fear, where virtually all eyes were closed to civil liberties principles, that John Abt plied his trade as a constitutional lawyer...

It would seem then, that Abt was not only never a member of the ACLU, he bore some enmity towards it. This bowing to McCarthysim was actually why another name known to Oswald (even if he got the first name wrong and apparently thought he was a she) Corliss Lamont quit and started up the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.

Also from the book... it's seems the Albertson case was far from finalized in '62, with appeals dragging it into '64. Just before Abt was to argue the appeal before the Supreme Court, a document was found on the front seat of Albertson's car purporting to be a letter from him addressed to a FBI handler requesting an increase in payments. The letter was handed in to the party leadership, and he was drummed out of the CP without any sort of investigation until AFTER this expulsion. According to Abt, he would have continued to represent him, even if he had been convinced of his guilt. Based on his party expulsion, the government decided the order for him to register was now moot and wanted the proceedings dropped. Albertson stood his ground, claiming his innocence regarding the letter and launching an internal party appeal for reinstatement - thus forcing his registration case to remain open. As part of the appeal, the CP got 3 handwriting experts in, all claiming the writing was Albertson's. Albertson himself however, apparently did some research and discovered that newly developed computer techniques made it possible to manufacture an exact replica of a persons signature which would be undetectable to experts. It was the letter itself which convinced Abt that Albertson was being framed. He (Abt) writes that he'd seen hundreds of reports, letters and affidavits made by paid informants, and this one broke all the rules. In short, the FBI, or some other person or group did not want the appeal proceeding.

----------------

SM

I had lazily assumed that Abt and the ACLU were basically singing from the same hymnsheet, at least when it came to freedom of speech & association.

The reality, as you point out, was rather different.

This makes it passing strange that Oswald would talk about both Abt and the ACLU in the same breath.

Here's a possible answer to the riddle:

What if Oswald AT THIS POINT IN THE CONVERSATION mentioned not the American Civil Liberties Union but the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee - an organisation which, like Abt, went where the ACLU dared to tread?

And what if he was simply misquoted due to honest confusion (rather than any deliberate attempt to put words in his mouth)? The ACLU, after all, had already come up in the interrogation before this - not to mention the fact that it was much better known than the NECLC. Someone hearing Oswald talking about a "Civil Liberties" organisation might easily assume he meant the ACLU.

Harry Holmes' recollection, for one, seems to leave this possibility open:

Mr. HOLMES. I don't know who started the conversation, but it had gotten into "Do you have an attorney?" He said, "No."

"Well, do you want an attorney?"

And he said, "No." Then he said, "Well, I tried to get a fellow from New York." But he said he wasn't able to get hold of him.

And I think he is a Civil Liberties Union lawyer

. He mentioned something about he looks after their interests in New York. I don't remember the name, but they discussed that.

Mr. BELIN. Would it be something like Abt?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes; short name. That could well be it.

To whom does "I" refer in the underlined sentence?

More to the point: did Abt actually help look after the interests of the ECLC in New York?

***

Your information on the further twists in the Albertson case is quite fascinating.

What's puzzling me is that Oswald seems to fit the profile of one of Abt's clients - but in reverse. Abt defended genuine leftist being tarred by informants - and even being tarred as informants. Oswald, by contrast, seems to have been an informant tarred as a genuine leftist!

In this context, it's interesting that SS Kelley's interrogation report has Oswald saying that "Abt would understand what this case was all about and [...] would give him an excellent defense."

Hmmmm...

***

All told, I tend to believe that Oswald really did talk about Abt in custody.

The question then moves from whether he did so to why?

Here I tend to agree with Pat Speer's answer: Oswald was probably using Abt's name merely as a means of keeping up his persecuted leftist act.

But there is a distinct possibility that he had a second, secret, Trojan-Horse reason for wishing to bring Abt into the room.

-----------------

GP

Sean, you've pretty much brought me on board. The only thoughts I could add are that what Kelley recalled Oswald saying seems to support the "Trojan Horse" theory. Apart from that, I haven't found any connection between Abt and the ECLC, except for his work on the McCarran cases with Joe Forer - a National Lawyers Guild founder. The NLG had its office inside the ECLC headquarters. This group (NLG) was founded to support the New Deal in opposition to the reactionary and pro-Republican American Bar Association. Oswald then, should have given Nichols a rather more frosty reception. This also heightens suspicion as to why the ACLU was blocked from seeing Oswald, whilst Nichols was given access.

[Courtney Redd]

Excellent! Thanks for posting this exchange, Greg.

Sean said: It's possible that Oswald didn't know for quite some time that he was being accused of shooting JFK.

I tend to agree with this. Seem to recall that film of Oswald's midnight press conference, when he's asked about shooting the President. He said, "Nobody has said that to me yet; the first thing I heard about it was when the newpaper reporters in the hall asked me that question."

Oswald was politely informed that he was being charged with the murder of the President, and just for a moment, you can see how shocked he is. Of course, that mask slips back on and he's back to being calm, cool and collected...but that surprise was there.

[Jim Root]

Greg:

REPORTER: "Did you shoot the President?"

OSWALD: "No, they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"

(Two sentences or three?)

One of my favorite sayings is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid)

So, in my own stupidity I will make these suggestions.

1. When asked the question, "Did you shoot the President?" Owasld wished to refocus the questions, to do that he said, "NO." End of sentence, not part of the next sentence. I suggest that this is in the same action that many of us might take, I know I have done it myself a million times, to refocus the question back to my/his issue. "No" as in I'm not answering that question, changeing the focus and allowing Oswald to make his most important statement, "they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"

But what was his issue? I continue to suggest that it is "because of the fact that I (Oswald) lived in the Soviet Union." and that he was "just a patsy!"

I do believe that Oswald ment exactly what he said and that Oswald had a purpose in assassination the President of the United States. It is also my belief that if we understand his "motive" ("They've taken me in because of the FACT that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy"

The reason that I believe he was a "patsy" was because Oswald did have access to information on the U-2, Oswald was willing to provide that information to the Soviets, and that Oswald later realized that it was the U-2 incident that thwarted the Paris Summit making him the "patsy" that he believed himself to be (see Spring Hill College speech by Oswald, July 27, 1963). The sabotage of the Paris Summit, might I a suggest, could have been accomplished by US Intelligence under the direction of NSC-68. In addition it was John J. McCloy, who participated in formulation of NSC-68, who, in a Nov. 4, 1959 meeting, expressed the fear that the limited test ban treaty being forced upon the US via international pressure and proposed to be signed at the Paris Summit the following year (may 1960), would be detrimental to the security of the United States. Did/would this fear have prompted a NSC-68 response. In a recent email from an expert on NSC-68 dealing with the issues confornting US policy makers as they prepared for the Paris Summit of 1960, I received this response: "In the specific case you mention, I am certain that opposition to the treaty was based in part on the conclusions of NSC-68. But, as you know, President Kennedy did pursue the treaty in 1963 even though the strategic situation for him was even worse than for Eisenhower." Could the same person who had the ability to sabotage the Paris Summit via the creation of an international incident also have the ability to execute a plan to assassinate the President of the United Sates? If we can accept this possiblity then we can speculate that John J. McCloy is a pivitol character in this drama.

All the pieces fit without 100's if not thousands of conspirators manipulating every detail to frame Oswald.

2. How many people must be added to the number of conspiritors to accomplish the missrepresentation or the misquoting of Oswald's words while in custody as suggested in this thread? 3? 5? 10? 20? Why would the conspirators need to take the investigation of the assassination out of the hands of the Dallas authorities if they already had all these willing co-conspirators in place to skew the investigation exactly how they wanted it skewed anyway? Or did the conspirators want to "plan" for every contingency before hand and have every detail in place ready to unfold in exactly their prearranged manner no mater how many co-conspirators were needed?

3. The Smith Act or Alien Registration Act was designed to protect the United States from internal threats posed by those living within the United States. It is my belief that Oswald was not stupid and that he understood exactly what the Smith Act was and how it had been used in the past. It is also my belief that he knew that he needed an attorney that was a specialist in this field, a person that would understand what had happened to him and how he had been made a "patsy" by US Intelligence agencies to thwart the Paris Summit. It is also my belief that his plan was to attempt to convince the world of the evils of both the Soviet and US governments because he was the committed Socialist that he said that he was.

I do not believe in a "Lone NUT."

But then all this is to simple. One shooter who was not a nut but a patsy and the conspirators that knew that Oswald, who they were watching closely (FBI survalence), would take the shot because only they knew that why Oswald had already shot at Walker (CIA letter to David Belin). No extra conspirators to do the shootings, no conspirators at Parkland to plant a bullet, no conspirators on the plane to switch or alter the body, no conspirators in the autopsy room, no conspirators to get Oswald the job, no conspirators to build a "story" around Oswald. IMO it was not that difficult. Run the motorcade past where Oswald worked and not allow the evidence (Hosty's 3rd note) to be revealed which would have let the world know who had access to the information of where Oswald was working. The motorcade route was decided in Washington, not Dallas. The last building passed was where Oswald was working. There were plenty of other options for that route. Oswald place of employment was known.

IMO John J. McCloy is the key. One man, one purpose (control the spread of nuclear technology) and the means to accomplish his goal NSC-68. John J. McCloy was a man used to letting no man (even the President of the United States) stand in his way (McCloy as High Commissioner of Germany only took the job after Truman agreed his (McCloy's) demand to give him absolute power to build a post war Germany. Truman repeatedly, dispite political opposition gave McCloy absolute power and did not interfere with his negotiations while supporting him 100 %). I have no doubt that when McCloy accepted the postion as Kennedy's lead arms advisor/negotiator, McCloy insisted on the same level of committment from Kennedy that he had demanded of and received from Truman. When Kennedy sidesteped McCloy and "President Kennedy did pursue the treaty in 1963 even though the strategic situation for him was even worse than for Eisenhower." McCloy may well have felt that it was in the strategic interest of the United States to eliminate the president (see Taylor speech at West Point, June of 1963 and McCloy walker exchanges on the presidentcy as the temporary custodians of the Constitution.

Jim Root

[Greg Parker]

Greg:

REPORTER: "Did you shoot the President?"

OSWALD: "No, they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"

(Two sentences or three?)

One of my favorite sayings is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid)

So, in my own stupidity I will make these suggestions.

1. When asked the question, "Did you shoot the President?" Owasld wished to refocus the questions, to do that he said, "NO." End of sentence, not part of the next sentence. I suggest that this is in the same action that many of us might take, I know I have done it myself a million times, to refocus the question back to my/his issue. "No" as in I'm not answering that question, changeing the focus and allowing Oswald to make his most important statement, "they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"

But what was his issue? I continue to suggest that it is "because of the fact that I (Oswald) lived in the Soviet Union." and that he was "just a patsy!"

Jim, with respect, I'm not entirely convinced that suggesting Oswald did not give a straight answer to a straight question, but on the contrary, gave an answer to an unasked question in order to change the focus, is entirely in keeping with the KISS principle.

I do believe that Oswald ment exactly what he said and that Oswald had a purpose in assassination the President of the United States. It is also my belief that if we understand his "motive" ("They've taken me in because of the FACT that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy"

Firstly, Oswald had an alibi which holds up under close scrutiny, so any theory having him as a shooter is in dire trouble right there. Secondly, you seem to suggest below that any conspiracy did not include any member of the DPD. If so, how do you explain the DPD picking Oswald up on the basis of his prior stay in the USSR... (assuming that was indeed the reason he was picked up)?

The reason that I believe he was a "patsy" was because Oswald did have access to information on the U-2, Oswald was willing to provide that information to the Soviets, and that Oswald later realized that it was the U-2 incident that thwarted the Paris Summit making him the "patsy" that he believed himself to be (see Spring Hill College speech by Oswald, July 27, 1963).

Oswald was not quoted as mentioning anything about the U2. Snyder said his threat to reveal all he knew was in regard to radar.

The sabotage of the Paris Summit, might I a suggest, could have been accomplished by US Intelligence under the direction of NSC-68. In addition it was John J. McCloy, who participated in formulation of NSC-68, who, in a Nov. 4, 1959 meeting, expressed the fear that the limited test ban treaty being forced upon the US via international pressure and proposed to be signed at the Paris Summit the following year (may 1960), would be detrimental to the security of the United States.

McCloy was hardly the only one pushing the hard line. But this is entering territory I'm working on at present. Let's just say the US scientists involved in the summits much preferred negotiating with the Russians.

Did/would this fear have prompted a NSC-68 response. In a recent email from an expert on NSC-68 dealing with the issues confornting US policy makers as they prepared for the Paris Summit of 1960, I received this response: "In the specific case you mention, I am certain that opposition to the treaty was based in part on the conclusions of NSC-68. But, as you know, President Kennedy did pursue the treaty in 1963 even though the strategic situation for him was even worse than for Eisenhower." Could the same person who had the ability to sabotage the Paris Summit via the creation of an international incident also have the ability to execute a plan to assassinate the President of the United Sates? If we can accept this possiblity then we can speculate that John J. McCloy is a pivitol character in this drama.

I won't argue with your reasoning here... perhaps the players, though McCloy is not ruled out.

All the pieces fit without 100's if not thousands of conspirators manipulating every detail to frame Oswald.

All the pieces fit if you believe Oswald was a genuine Leftist, was genuine regarding his FPCC exploits, was never impersonated, got his job without behind the scenes manipulations, did order two weapons, did transport the rifle to the building, and did go to MC to try and obtain a Cuban visa etc etc.

2. How many people must be added to the number of conspiritors to accomplish the missrepresentation or the misquoting of Oswald's words while in custody as suggested in this thread? 3? 5? 10? 20?

None. Cops have always made up evidence to try and get a conviction against people they believe to be guilty, but where real evidence is weak. Human nature. They don't have to be part of any conspiracy regarding the assassination.

In any case, though I still have some unresolved questions, somewhere along the way the balance of probability has to tip one way or the other and I now am inclined to fall into line with the majority who believe Oswald did ask for Abt.

Why would the conspirators need to take the investigation of the assassination out of the hands of the Dallas authorities if they already had all these willing co-conspirators in place to skew the investigation exactly how they wanted it skewed anyway?

That's based on your previous faulty assumption. Applying the KISS principle, I could simply put it down to Hoover being a control freak.

But I don't really believe the KISS principle works well in cases dealing with intelligence operatives and their operations.

Or did the conspirators want to "plan" for every contingency before hand and have every detail in place ready to unfold in exactly their prearranged manner no mater how many co-conspirators were needed?

You're continuing to build from a basis that itself was unsound.

3. The Smith Act or Alien Registration Act was designed to protect the United States from internal threats posed by those living within the United States. It is my belief that Oswald was not stupid and that he understood exactly what the Smith Act was and how it had been used in the past. It is also my belief that he knew that he needed an attorney that was a specialist in this field, a person that would understand what had happened to him and how he had been made a "patsy" by US Intelligence agencies to thwart the Paris Summit. It is also my belief that his plan was to attempt to convince the world of the evils of both the Soviet and US governments because he was the committed Socialist that he said that he was.

I do not believe in a "Lone NUT."

Here, I can understand where you're coming from... and in broad outline, can see how tempting such a conclusion might be... but it fails in the detail.

But then all this is to simple. One shooter who was not a nut but a patsy and the conspirators that knew that Oswald, who they were watching closely (FBI survalence), would take the shot because only they knew that why Oswald had already shot at Walker (CIA letter to David Belin). No extra conspirators to do the shootings, no conspirators at Parkland to plant a bullet, no conspirators on the plane to switch or alter the body, no conspirators in the autopsy room, no conspirators to get Oswald the job, no conspirators to build a "story" around Oswald. IMO it was not that difficult. Run the motorcade past where Oswald worked and not allow the evidence (Hosty's 3rd note) to be revealed which would have let the world know who had access to the information of where Oswald was working. The motorcade route was decided in Washington, not Dallas. The last building passed was where Oswald was working. There were plenty of other options for that route. Oswald place of employment was known.

The motorcade route was more accurately rubber-stamped in Washington. It was decided in Dallas, and Washington was never going to overturn it, even though they could.

IMO John J. McCloy is the key. One man, one purpose (control the spread of nuclear technology) and the means to accomplish his goal NSC-68. John J. McCloy was a man used to letting no man (even the President of the United States) stand in his way (McCloy as High Commissioner of Germany only took the job after Truman agreed his (McCloy's) demand to give him absolute power to build a post war Germany. Truman repeatedly, dispite political opposition gave McCloy absolute power and did not interfere with his negotiations while supporting him 100 %). I have no doubt that when McCloy accepted the postion as Kennedy's lead arms advisor/negotiator, McCloy insisted on the same level of committment from Kennedy that he had demanded of and received from Truman. When Kennedy sidesteped McCloy and "President Kennedy did pursue the treaty in 1963 even though the strategic situation for him was even worse than for Eisenhower." McCloy may well have felt that it was in the strategic interest of the United States to eliminate the president (see Taylor speech at West Point, June of 1963 and McCloy walker exchanges on the presidentcy as the temporary custodians of the Constitution.

Interesting stuff. We actually use very similar evidence and historical signposts.

Jim Root