Jesse Curry Interviews Nov 1963

[Martin Weidmann]

Jerry posed the question as to why Oswald would target Walker, a right winger, and JFK, a leftist, for assassination.  What facts do I "need to establish" to respond to this question?  There is no debate that a sniper attack on a public figure is an extremely rare crime.  There is no debate that both crimes occurred in Dallas.  There is no debate that both crimes occurred just a few months apart.  From those widely known and accepted facts, we can logically infer that the crimes were related due to their rarity and proximity in time and location.  It would be extremely unlikely that two such rare crimes would occur in Dallas within such a relatively short time frame and be unrelated.  So the same shooter almost certainly committed both crimes. 

Are you suggesting these facts are incorrect and that the two crimes are not related?  If Oswald committed both crimes (as the evidence confirms including his confession to Marina regarding his involvement in the Walker attempt), then we can infer from these facts certain conclusions as to why Oswald choose these specific targets for the reasons that I've discussed.  Most importantly opportunity and political grievances.  Walker lived in Dallas.  He was a right winger who Oswald hated for his political views.  His presence in Dallas made him accessible to Oswald who had limited means of transportation and funds.   Similarly, JFK's motorcade passed Oswald's place of employment.  Oswald had grievances against the US that he freely expressed.  JFK was the literal and symbolic head of the country that Oswald detested.  Oswald had motive and opportunity to commit both crimes.  There is nothing made up about any of this.  Certainly nothing you have articulated since your responses have been limited to contrarian commentary directed at me instead of addressing the facts and circumstances of the case.

From those widely known and accepted facts, we can logically infer that the crimes were related due to their rarity and proximity in time and location. '

There you go again, jumping to a conclusion not supported by the evidence. The mere fact that two attacks took place in Dallas within a few months of eachother tells you absolutely nothing about any possible relationship between those two crimes.

It would be extremely unlikely that two such rare crimes would occur in Dallas within such a relatively short time frame and be unrelated.

Your opinion isn't evidence. It is, at best, wishful thinking.

Are you suggesting these facts are incorrect and that the two crimes are not related?

No, I am suggesting that you are (once again) jumping to selfserving "conclusions".

Certainly nothing you have articulated since your responses have been limited to contrarian commentary directed at me instead of addressing the facts and circumstances of the case.

What facts would that be? All I see are your opinions and there is no point for me to debate those. Start presenting actual facts and circumstances of the case and I will respond. As long as you keep up making your own alternate reality (just like your orange high priest) I am not going to bother to justify any of it with a response.

[John Iacoletti]

The note-takers said Oswald claimed to be in the domino room having lunch with one or more people there, or that Oswald saw two people who came into the lunchroom. Taking all the reports from those present when Oswald was questioned, Fritz's note saying they "came in" means the two black men entered the lunchroom and possibly had lunch with Oswald there.

Nobody (except arguably Hosty) took contemporaneous notes. Not all the accounts said domino room either, just first floor.

[Richard Smith]

Yes, John....I believe that you're right.   Attempting to tie the Walker incident to the assassination of JFK isn't logical.   Apparently the investigators weren't as perceptive as our Mr "Smith" because  DPD Chief Curry simply shrugged off the suggestion when he was asked if there was a connection between the two events.

However....I do believe there is a common MO in the two events.   Though there would have been no logical reason to tie the two events together on the evening of 11/22/63, it is now obvious that there is a common MO that can be applied to both events.

The common denominator is... Lee Oswald.    And in both events there are many many questions  that require answers that only Lee Oswald could supply.   

 

Two sniper attacks occurring on public figures in the same city within a few months of each other is a pretty "logical reason to tie the two events together."   They couldn't know with certainty that on 11.22 that they were connected until an investigation could be conducted but they certainly had a reasonable basis to believe they were related due to rarity of such a crime and the proximity in time and location.   I'm not sure why you find this mysterious or sinister.

[Walt Cakebread]

Fritz's note saying they "came in" means the two black men entered the lunchroom

Not necessarily. It could just as easily mean that Oswald saw both men as they "came in" the building through the backdoor, which was very close to the door of the Domino room.

Fritz's note saying they "came in" means the two black men entered the lunchroom

My first thought when I read that they  "came in"  is that Lee was saying that Jarman and Norman "came in"  meant that they came in from outside...  IOW Lee said they came into the building.  He sure as hell wasn't saying that they came into the Lunchroom....Because he said that he was there in that lunchroom alone and he said nothing about anybody joining him and what's more  Jarman and Norman never said anything about entering the lunchroom.

This is the crap that the LNer's attempt to use to propagate the Warren Commission's big lie.

[Walt Cakebread]

Nobody (except arguably Hosty) took contemporaneous notes. Not all the accounts said domino room either, just first floor.

I know that Fritz testified that he took no notes while interrogating Lee Oswald, but if you've seen the Notes that Fritz said he took several days after the interrogation you should be able to see that Fritz was a damned liar.   Nobody would hastily scribble those notes in the truncated and haphazard manner that is seen in Fritz's notes if he wrote them several days afterward.   ( Just the idea that he would take notes several days later is absurd) 

[Jerry Freeman]

   Nothing that tends to incriminate their idol makes any sense to them. But, believing that everyone except their idol lied, and that all of the incriminating evidence is “highly questionable”, or outright fake, makes perfect sense to them. It’s more than simple confirmation bias. It’s insanity personified.

Why do you have to be so profoundly ludicrous?

[Charles Collins]

Why do you have to be so profoundly ludicrous?