JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on November 27, 2024, 06:26:12 PM
-
My 3rd (and final?) Debate with Matt Douthit on the Tippit case. This debate is completely related to Matt's Lancer presentation which he did on Nov. 22, 2024. We recorded this debate four days before his Lancer presentation and waited until after his presentation before posting.
I welcome any criticisms and/or thoughts.
-
The best evidence that something could happen is that it did happen. Once you demonstrate that, all the pedantic nitpicking in the world doesn't change that fact. The timeframe for Oswald to move from point A to point B can't be known with certainty. That endless pedantic debate is to enter the realm of the CTer. All of that is no longer relevant if the evidence places him at the scene of the Tippit murder. And that is the situation in this case. The timeframe for Oswald's every movement is mooted if the evidence demonstrates that he was in fact at the scene of the Tippit shooting. And it does. Numerous witnesses place him there. So whether he walked, ran, got a ride or sprouted wings to get there, the fact remains that he was there. No one has to recreate his movements to prove that.
-
We know LHO shot JFK from the 6th Floor of the TSBD. Therefore any question of what happened before or after the shooting is irrelevant.
-
The NYC shooter of the CEO apparently retained the fake ID he used in NYC. He was apparently a very highly educated individual, and did exactly what Oswald did in retaining a fake ID that would later link him to the crime. Something CTers argue no one would do. I wonder if he also said "it's over now" between scarfing down some chicken McNuggets when approached by the police?
-
14:55 Bill is cherry-picking the one statement by Earlene Roberts that he can use to make his timeline work, and ignoring the rest.
17:39 Whaley in his initial affidavit from 11/22/63 said that he let his passenger off in the 500 block of Beckley, not just that this was the destination the passenger had asked for when he got into the cab.
24:09 the thing that Bill doesn’t appreciate here is that the FBI and Secret service were just as motivated as he is to make the Oswald timeline fit. So of course their time trials and estimates are going to err on the side of every step happening quick enough to make the desired story work.
27:18 “absolute earliest” is an admission that this is a best-case scenario not a typical one.
29:15 the problem is that Whaley’s timesheet says that this passenger got in the cab at 12:30. The standard excuse is that he rounded his times to 15 minute intervals. However, one look at the timesheet shows several entries that are not on 15 minute boundaries, and the closest 15 minute boundary to 12:48 would be 12:45 anyway.
45:20 The flaw in Bill’s argument here is the assumption that the walk from the cab drop off to the rooming house would be at a consistent rate of speed as a walk from the rooming house to 10th and Patton. Different walks, different times, different motivations. Besides, I watched the video of Bill’s “walk”, and he was hauling ass, in my opinion. Let’s assume the LN story is actually true and Oswald deliberately had the can driver go past the rooming house so that he could check for cops. Once he verified there were no cops, why would he go an additional 4 blocks, and why would he then conspicuously power-walk/trot back up a major thoroughfare to get back and risk calling attention to himself? And then why would he be hauling ass like this in the direction of 10th and Patton? To get where?
53:38 the video that Bill ended up posting is not a walk from Beckley and Neely to the rooming house — it’s a walk from the rooming house to 10th and Patton. Granted, a portion of that goes past the Beckley and Neely intersection, but it doesn’t account at all for crossing the street in a southerly direction, waiting for Whaley to drive off, and flipping around.
1:00:11 Bill’s argument here is that ”it’s not absolutely impossible that Oswald arrived at the rooming house at 12:59, therefore he did.
1:04:42 What? The mere fact that it is being questioned makes it questionable. By definition.
1:10:50 why would you need to get on 10th Street at all to get to Jefferson and Marsalis?
1:11:50 why is it a problem for the barbershop sighting to be before noon? And how does Bill know it was necessarily before noon?
1:21:40 Scoggins doesn’t say in his testimony that he got back to his cab just in time for the shooting.
1:33:04 Bill is making yet another “It’s not impossible, therefore it happened” argument here. It’s not impossible that they all missed seeing the guy walking east the first time, therefore that’s what he did.
1:39:57 if he got to the bend in 10th Street and saw a police car 3 blocks down at Jefferson, why not just turn down Lansing? Way less conspicuous than doing an about-face.
1:44:00 Another one of these arguments. It’s not impossible for there to have been a fifth shot and both a Remington bullet and a Winchester shell were “never found”. Therefore that’s what happened.
1:55:28 what Bill fails to mention here is that ALL .38 special bullets have 5 lands and grooves and a right twist.
1:55:48 This argument is a really transparent attempt to have it both ways. If the evidence was conclusive, Bill would say that’s because Oswald did it. If the evidence is inconclusive, he says that’s “framers” would claim the evidence was conclusive, therefore there were no “framers”, therefore Oswald did it.
2:00:39 Is there any example in any part of the Warren Commission proceedings where they sought a second opinion from a non-FBI agent when the FBI analysis was what they wanted to hear?
2:03:32 false. Virginia Davis testified that Barbara found a shell and she saw her pick it up. Bill claims here that Doughty picked up a shell.
2:03:53 Doughty and Dhority could only identify shells that were handed to them. They wouldn’t have any firsthand knowledge of where those shells came from.
By the way, the whole narrative about evidence being shown to various people is in an anonymously written letter (CE2011), and agent Bardwell Odum is on record as saying that the parts that apply to him regarding CE399 didn’t happen.
2:08:54 It doesn’t matter what Mary and Robert Brock said. The only thing they witnessed was a guy walking past a building.
2:09:24 what Bill left out is that the FBI report on Reynolds says “he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”
2:13:35 Benavides and Scoggins weren’t “outdoors”. They were inside their vehicles.
2:14:43 Bill doesn’t know for a fact that what he has heard is the complete interview of Burt by Chapman, nor does he know for a fact that this is the only time Burt talked to Chapman.
2:16:20 Bill doesn’t know if Oswald’s shirt was unbuttoned or not before he was involved in the struggle in the theater.
2:18:18 Hang on. If Oswald had a jacket on over his shirt, and Roberts saw him zipping it up, and the witnesses couldn’t tell what kind of shirt the guy they saw had on because it was covered up by the jacket, then why did any of them describe a shirt color at all?
-
14:55 Bill is cherry-picking the one statement by Earlene Roberts that he can use to make his timeline work, and ignoring the rest.
Roberts stated that Oswald was back in his room just long enough to grab a jacket and put it on. How long does it take you to grab your jacket and put it on?
-
17:39 Whaley in his initial affidavit from 11/22/63 said that he let his passenger off in the 500 block of Beckley, not just that this was the destination the passenger had asked for when he got into the cab.
On film, for the Four Days In November documentary, Whaley drove the exact route he says he took that day. In it, he stated that he dropped Oswald off at Beckley & Neely.
-
24:09 the thing that Bill doesn’t appreciate here is that the FBI and Secret service were just as motivated as he is to make the Oswald timeline fit. So of course their time trials and estimates are going to err on the side of every step happening quick enough to make the desired story work.
Nonsense. The times either work or they don't. In this case, they worked.
Oswald easily gets from the Depository at 12:33 to Tenth & Patton by 1:12.
-
29:15 the problem is that Whaley’s timesheet says that this passenger got in the cab at 12:30. The standard excuse is that he rounded his times to 15 minute intervals. However, one look at the timesheet shows several entries that are not on 15 minute boundaries, and the closest 15 minute boundary to 12:48 would be 12:45 anyway.
What's your point? Oswald didn't take Whaley's cab to Oak Cliff? Easy to criticize those putting it out there. You've never put anything out there.
-
45:20 The flaw in Bill’s argument here is the assumption that the walk from the cab drop off to the rooming house would be at a consistent rate of speed as a walk from the rooming house to 10th and Patton. Different walks, different times, different motivations. Besides, I watched the video of Bill’s “walk”, and he was hauling ass, in my opinion. Let’s assume the LN story is actually true and Oswald deliberately had the can driver go past the rooming house so that he could check for cops. Once he verified there were no cops, why would he go an additional 4 blocks, and why would he then conspicuously power-walk/trot back up a major thoroughfare to get back and risk calling attention to himself? And then why would he be hauling ass like this in the direction of 10th and Patton? To get where?
Nonsense. We were not "hauling ass". We were walking with a purpose, as Oswald most certainly would have been doing. We weren't walking any faster than the Oswald actor walked in the Gary Mack/Dave Perry time trials and I've seen you criticize that.
-
1:00:11 Bill’s argument here is that ”it’s not absolutely impossible that Oswald arrived at the rooming house at 12:59, therefore he did.
You're getting desperate here to add to the list.
All I really have to do is show that it was possible, which has been explained.
-
Roberts stated that Oswald was back in his room just long enough to grab a jacket and put it on. How long does it take you to grab your jacket and put it on?
It doesn't matter. Roberts said it was about 3 or 4 minutes.
-
On film, for the Four Days In November documentary, Whaley drove the exact route he says he took that day. In it, he stated that he dropped Oswald off at Beckley & Neely.
So how do you know which version is correct?
-
Nonsense. The times either work or they don't. In this case, they worked.
Oswald easily gets from the Depository at 12:33 to Tenth & Patton by 1:12.
Sure, if you make a whole bunch of unsubstantiated self-serving assumptions, including how long he was in the rooming house, what route was taken and what time the shooting occurred.
-
What's your point? Oswald didn't take Whaley's cab to Oak Cliff?
Not if he picked his passenger up at 12:30 and the guy was wearing two jackets and a khaki blue uniform.
Easy to criticize those putting it out there. You've never put anything out there.
Like making up fantasy stories is a virtue...
-
Nonsense. We were not "hauling ass". We were walking with a purpose, as Oswald most certainly would have been doing. We weren't walking any faster than the Oswald actor walked in the Gary Mack/Dave Perry time trials and I've seen you criticize that.
Nonsense. You were "walking" way faster than Gary Mack's guy. Yes, you were "walking with a purpose". Your purpose was to make it to 10th and Patton in 12 minutes. What was Oswald's purpose in hauling ass like that? Was he afraid he would miss Tippit?
-
You're getting desperate here to add to the list.
All I really have to do is show that it was possible, which has been explained.
Lots of untrue things are possible.
-
Lots of untrue things are possible.
That changes absolutely nothing.
Oswald could have arrived at Tenth & Patton by 1:12.
Leaves Depository at 12:33
Boards Mcwatters' bus at 12:40
Exits the bus at 12:44
Enters Whaley's taxi at 12:48
Exits Whaley's taxi at 12:53
Enters the rooming house at 12:59
Leaves the rooming house at 1:00
By 1:01 is walking south on Beckley.
-
Nonsense. You were "walking" way faster than Gary Mack's guy. Yes, you were "walking with a purpose". Your purpose was to make it to 10th and Patton in 12 minutes. What was Oswald's purpose in hauling ass like that? Was he afraid he would miss Tippit?
No. We weren't walking any faster than "Gary Mack's guy". You're not making sense. He did it in 11:10. We did it in a bit over 12 minutes. Please explain how we were walking faster than he was.
-
James Files knew who killed JD Tippit !
-
No. We weren't walking any faster than "Gary Mack's guy". You're not making sense. He did it in 11:10. We did it in a bit over 12 minutes. Please explain how we were walking faster than he was.
But they got to 10th street from Crawford and you can't do that anymore.
-
But they got to 10th street from Crawford and you can't do that anymore.
That makes no difference. Whether one goes down Crawford or over to Patton and then down Patton, it's the same distance. Look at a map, John.
I've never seen you criticize Gary Mack's guy for "hauling ass" and he got there faster than we did. Just stop it.
-
Bill you should consider that Oswald double timed a few times while going the 7 blocks to the bus then when going to Whaley’s taxi.
Also probably when he exited Whaley’s taxi Oswald may have double timed back to the house.
It’s even possible Oswald might have jogged sporadically when he left the boarding room to go to wherever he was intending to go.)
This way you can shave off enough time to actually get Oswald to 10th and Patton by 1.07 , shoot Tippit at 1:08, leave the scene by 1:09 and then everything works out with Markams1:07 sighting, Bolleys 1:10 radio call and the ambulance trip works and Tippit arrivesto the hospital at 1:15 pm and pronounced DOA at 1:15 just as the emergency room doctor documented it.
-
Bill you should consider that Oswald double timed a few times while going the 7 blocks to the bus then when going to Whaley’s taxi.
Also probably when he exited Whaley’s taxi Oswald may have double timed back to the house.
It’s even possible Oswald might have jogged sporadically when he left the boarding room to go to wherever he was intending to go.)
This way you can shave off enough time to actually get Oswald to 10th and Patton by 1.07 , shoot Tippit at 1:08, leave the scene by 1:09 and then everything works out with Markams1:07 sighting, Bolleys 1:10 radio call and the ambulance trip works and Tippit arrivesto the hospital at 1:15 pm and pronounced DOA at 1:15 just as the emergency room doctor documented it.
Bill you should consider that Oswald double timed a few times while going the 7 blocks to the bus then when going to Whaley’s taxi.
Also probably when he exited Whaley’s taxi Oswald may have double timed back to the house.
It’s even possible Oswald might have jogged sporadically when he left the boarding room to go to wherever he was intending to go.
It's definitely possible.
Bolleys 1:10 radio call
Bowley's call was at 1:17.
-
Bowley's call was at 1:17.
where do you get this garbage from?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are three different and contradictory versions of DPD radio logs.
The WC accepted 2 obviously doctored versions before pretending to get a complete one.
And that did not happen until the investigation was just about over.
March 1964
The 1st version was given to the WC. It is Exhibit 705.
The DPD portion takes up 104 pages. It was made available by Inspector Sawyer.
There is a lack of name identification for many of the code numbers.
April 8, 1964
"Sawyer Exhibit A and B" is only 12 pages and accepted without question.
The version was also prepared with no names but at some point the names were added in longhand.
It also misidentified some and failed to identify others.
August 11, 1964
In response to a WC request the FBI supplied the final version. It is Exhibit 1974.
216 pages yet incomplete by the WCs design.
They limited the periods to be covered to only nine hours for the three-days.
The WC was almost finished with its work.
source: Harold Weisberg | Whitewash
-
where do you get this garbage from?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are three different and contradictory versions of DPD radio logs.
The WC accepted 2 obviously doctored versions before pretending to get a complete one.
And that did not happen until the investigation was just about over.
March 1964
The 1st version was given to the WC. It is Exhibit 705.
The DPD portion takes up 104 pages. It was made available by Inspector Sawyer.
There is a lack of name identification for many of the code numbers.
April 8, 1964
"Sawyer Exhibit A and B" is only 12 pages and accepted without question.
The version was also prepared with no names but at some point the names were added in longhand.
It also misidentified some and failed to identify others.
August 11, 1964
In response to a WC request the FBI supplied the final version. It is Exhibit 1974.
216 pages yet incomplete by the WCs design.
They limited the periods to be covered to only nine hours for the three-days.
The WC was almost finished with its work.
source: Harold Weisberg | Whitewash
1:17 is taken from the recordings of the radio traffic on Channel 1. IIRC, Dale Meyers works up from the 1:16 transmissions and gets 1:17:41. If you search this website, there's a post (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3459.msg129217.html#msg129217) where I worked backwards from the 1:19 transmissions to put the start of the Bowley transmission at 1:17:54 +/- 10 seconds.
-
1:17 is taken from the recordings of the radio traffic on Channel 1. IIRC, Dale Meyers works up from the 1:16 transmissions and gets 1:17:41. If you search this website, there's a post (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3459.msg129217.html#msg129217) where I worked backwards from the 1:19 transmissions to put the start of the Bowley transmission at 1:17:54 +/- 10 seconds.
Regurgitating someone else's garbage means even less.
-
That makes no difference. Whether one goes down Crawford or over to Patton and then down Patton, it's the same distance. Look at a map, John.
I've never seen you criticize Gary Mack's guy for "hauling ass" and he got there faster than we did. Just stop it.
Gary Mack's video didn't show much of the actual walk. Nor do we see the guy flailing his arm in an attempt to keep up, like your friend.
-
It's definitely possible.
Bowley's call was at 1:17.
That's not what Bowley said.
And there is no "1:17" dispatcher time announcement. And the announcements were of unknown accuracy.
-
1:17 is taken from the recordings of the radio traffic on Channel 1. IIRC, Dale Meyers works up from the 1:16 transmissions and gets 1:17:41. If you search this website, there's a post (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3459.msg129217.html#msg129217) where I worked backwards from the 1:19 transmissions to put the start of the Bowley transmission at 1:17:54 +/- 10 seconds.
The machine didn't record continuously, and the extant recordings have been spliced and edited.
-
The machine didn't record continuously, and the extant recordings have been spliced and edited.
The Dictabelts were not guaranteed to record continuously over some period of time, but they would if there was enough traffic, as in the police response to the Tippit shooting. We've been here before.
The splice points have already been identified, and do not affect the 1:16 - 1:19 time period.
As for your continuing assertions that there are edits beyond the splicing, those are simply your own unsupported nebulosities.
-
The Dictabelts were not guaranteed to record continuously over some period of time, but they would if there was enough traffic, as in the police response to the Tippit shooting. We've been here before.
The splice points have already been identified, and do not affect the 1:16 - 1:19 time period.
As for your continuing assertions that there are edits beyond the splicing, those are simply your own unsupported nebulosities.
BullSpotty Avocada
https://jfk.boards.net/post/679
-
As for your continuing assertions that there are edits beyond the splicing, those are simply your own unsupported nebulosities.
Like your unsupported nebulosity that there was enough traffic to record continuously?
-
Like your unsupported nebulosity that there was enough traffic to record continuously?
As I've said, we've been over this before. The DPD recording system would continue to record for four full seconds after the end of a transmission. There isn't a gap that long between Bowley's transmission and the second of the two 1:19 time stamps, indicating that the Dictabelt was running continuously in that interval
-
As I've said, we've been over this before. The DPD recording system would continue to record for four full seconds after the end of a transmission. There isn't a gap that long between Bowley's transmission and the second of the two 1:19 time stamps, indicating that the Dictabelt was running continuously in that interval
That doesn't even make sense. Are you saying the Benavides/Bowley transmission was at 1:19 (police dispatcher time)?
-
That doesn't even make sense. Are you saying the Benavides/Bowley transmission was at 1:19 (police dispatcher time)?
JI: That doesn't even make sense.
It makes perfect sense if you actually stop to understand how the system worked. But you have to stop to think about it first
JI: Are you saying the Benavides/Bowley transmission was at 1:19 (police dispatcher time)?
I've already said a few posts ago in this thread that my analysis puts the beginning of the Bowley transmission at 1:17:54 +/- 10 seconds, so, no. You replied to that post. Do you not understand what you read, or are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?
-
That doesn't even make sense. Are you saying the Benavides/Bowley transmission was at 1:19 (police dispatcher time)?
Wow. Just wow.
-
I've already said a few posts ago in this thread that my analysis puts the beginning of the Bowley transmission at 1:17:54 +/- 10 seconds
Only if you assume (without evidence) that the device was continuously recording between 1:16 and 1:19, and that the extant copies are an accurate representation of what was captured on the device. Not to mention the assumption that the dispatcher time announcements are accurate to begin with.
By the way, the transcript here indicates a 15 second pause right before the "hello police operator broadcast".
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm)
-
Only if you assume (without evidence) that the device was continuously recording between 1:16 and 1:19, and that the extant copies are an accurate representation of what was captured on the device. Not to mention the assumption that the dispatcher time announcements are accurate to begin with.
By the way, the transcript here indicates a 15 second pause right before the "hello police operator broadcast".
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm)
JI: Only if you assume (without evidence) that the device was continuously recording between 1:16 and 1:19
I don't assume that the recording ran continuously from 1:16 to 1:19, for exactly the reason you mention. I said that the recording is continuous from "Hello, Police Operator" to the seconds 1:19 transmission. That's why I started from the 1:19 transmissions and worked backwards. I've already explained why I say this.
-
Sorry, but can’t see how Bowleys watch which he says he looked at when reaching the scene , could be 7 minutes slow.
And Markams clock would have to be similarly 7 minutes slow.
So that’s why I at least was offering double timing for Oswald so the timeline can work without having to impeach major WC witnesses.
Did Calloway ever agree with anyone making a suggestion that he must of heard the shots fired at 1:15?
And there is that pesky 1:15 DOA by the emergency doctor which is MOT the same as a physicians “estimate” of when Tippit was shot. The DOA document is simply noting what the time of the hospital clock was when the doctor announced the body is dead. That clock also would have to be 7 minutes slow if you believe that the Bowleys radio call was made at 1:17.
-
Sorry, but can’t see how Bowleys watch which he says he looked at when reaching the scene , could be 7 minutes slow.
And Markams clock would have to be similarly 7 minutes slow.
So that’s why I at least was offering double timing for Oswald so the timeline can work without having to impeach major WC witnesses.
Did Calloway ever agree with anyone making a suggestion that he must of heard the shots fired at 1:15?
And there is that pesky 1:15 DOA by the emergency doctor which is MOT the same as a physicians “estimate” of when Tippit was shot. The DOA document is simply noting what the time of the hospital clock was when the doctor announced the body is dead. That clock also would have to be 7 minutes slow if you believe that the Bowleys radio call was made at 1:17.
As I've said before, we can't assume that everyone's clock was set to a specific time standard. In the days before NTP and quartz movement, you could reliably figure that any random clock you would see would be within 5 minutes of "real" time. Sometimes not even that. Bowley is quoted in Into the Nightmare as saying that his watch could be 5 minutes off. So, it could have been as late as 1:15 when Bowley's watch indicated 1:10. Also, the DPD clocks are not guaranteed to be exactly on time either, though they should generally be closer than Bowley's watch. Bowles said the dispatch center clocks were as much as 2 minutes off.
So if Bowey's watch is 5 minutes slow, and the channel one clock is two minutes fast, then 1:10 Bowley time is 1:15 "real" time and 1:17 on the channel one clock is also 1:15 "real" time, and there isn't a discrepancy.
As for Markham's laundromat clock, I will say that I've never seen anyone set their watch to a laundromat clock. There may be a reason for that.
-
As I've said before, we can't assume that everyone's clock was set to a specific time standard.
Including the police dispatcher's clock.
Also, the DPD clocks are not guaranteed to be exactly on time either, though they should generally be closer than Bowley's watch. Bowles said the dispatch center clocks were as much as 2 minutes off.
No, what he actually wrote was "Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done."
-
From CE705 (the original transcript of the police recordings):
(https://i.vgy.me/W8HPIA.gif)
-
From CE705 (the original transcript of the police recordings):
(https://i.vgy.me/W8HPIA.gif)
think you meant CE 705 and not CD 705?
The CE705 transcripts were hastily done by people weren't transcriptionists. They aren't very good, to say the least. The best transcripts of channel one traffic made by Russ Shearer using the Dix tape. They are, by far, the beast and most complete transcript of channel one traffic. You can find it at Bill Drenas' site: https://www.billdrenas.com/articles/dpd01-00.pdf
This is what the shearer transcript looks like along the interface you quoted.:
905. CITIZEN: Between Marsaliis and Beckley. It's a police officer. Somebody shot him. What--what's... 404 Tenth Street.
906. DIS: Can you hear me?
907. (Man and woman's voice in background)
908. DIS: 78.
909. CITIZEN: It's a police car, number 10.
910. DIS: 78.
911. DIS: (?) 78.
912. CITIZEN: Got that?
913. CITIZEN: Hello, police operator. Did you get that?
914. DIS: Attention. Signal 19, police officer, 510 East Jefferson.
915. CITIZEN: Thank you.
916. 35: 35.
917. 259: 259.
918. DIS: The citizen using the police radio: Remain off the radio now.
919. DIS: 91.
920. 69: 69's going out there.
921. DIS: 10-4, 69, code 3.
922. 602: 602, code 5.
923. 211: 211.
924. DIS: 211.
925. 211: We're clear, Industrial and Stemmons. We'll go out there.
926. DIS: 10-4, 211.
927. 15: 15.
928. 603: 603, code 5, Baylor.
929. 602: 602, code 6 (?).
1:19 930. DIS: 10-4, 603 and 602. 1:19.
931. 602: What was that address on Jefferson?
932. DIS: 501 East Tenth.
933. 85: 85 en route.
934. 19: 19.
935. DIS: 19.
936. 19: Give me the correct address on the shooting.
937. DIS: 501 East Tenth.
938. 105: 105.
938a. 602: 602, code 6.
939. 102: 102, code 4.
940. 105: Was 519 East Jefferson correct? (Siren)
941. DIS: We have two locations; 501 East Jefferson and
501 East Tenth.
941a. DIS: 19, are you en route?
941b. 105: Is this an officer?
942. : This is northward on Tenth.
942a. 19: 10-4.
942b. : 10-4.
942c. : 10...4.
942d. : 10-4.
942e. : ...on Tenth.
943. 19: 19 is en route.
944. DIS: 10-4, 19.
945. 605: 605, code 5
946. DIS: 10-4, 605. 1:19.
-
Bowley is quoted in Into the Nightmare as saying that his watch could be 5 minutes off. So, it could have been as late as 1:15 when Bowley's watch indicated 1:10. Also, the DPD clocks are not guaranteed to be exactly on time either, though they should generally be closer than Bowley's watch. Bowles said the dispatch center clocks were as much as 2 minutes off.
As for Markham's laundromat clock, I will say that I've never seen anyone set their watch to a laundromat clock. There may be a reason for that.
lol - All clocks are wrong except for the time that implicate Oswald. :D
Bowley said his watch could have been off, therefore it WAS. Todd hangs around laundromats looking for who might set a watch by the clock on the wall.
Never did see anyone, therefore it was at least 1:15p https://jfk.boards.net/post/3903/thread
Meanwhile - 3 witnesses corroborate the earlier time of shooting (before 1:10p) - He just doesn't like them.
4 Documents also indicating an earlier time of death are obviously fudged. https://jfk.boards.net/post/57/thread
And no matter how many times he says it. The dicta belt times just cannot be relied upon. - It is garbage.
-
lol - All clocks are wrong except for the time that implicate Oswald. :D
Bowley said his watch could have been off, therefore it WAS. Todd hangs around laundromats looking for who might set a watch by the clock on the wall.
Never did see anyone, therefore it was at least 1:15p https://jfk.boards.net/post/3903/thread
Meanwhile - 3 witnesses corroborate the earlier time of shooting (before 1:10p) - He just doesn't like them.
4 Documents also indicating an earlier time of death are obviously fudged. https://jfk.boards.net/post/57/thread
And no matter how many times he says it. The dicta belt times just cannot be relied upon. - It is garbage.
In the 70's, Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz interviewed a nurse named Thompson, who was one of the Methodist ER staff attending to Tippit that afternoon. She said that the Methodist ER clock was off by 15 minutes that day. Dale Myers interviewed Dr Mohlenhoff, who assisted Dr Liguori's attempt to resuscitate Tippit. Mohlenhoff said that any timing discrepancy would have been due to issues with the Methodist time system. Therefore, your attempt to build a case around Methodist time will fail miserably, since you're relying on the least realiable clock that day.
-
In the 70's, Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz interviewed a nurse named Thompson, who was one of the Methodist ER staff attending to Tippit that afternoon. She said that the Methodist ER clock was off by 15 minutes that day. Dale Myers interviewed Dr Mohlenhoff, who assisted Dr Liguori's attempt to resuscitate Tippit. Mohlenhoff said that any timing discrepancy would have been due to issues with the Methodist time system. Therefore, your attempt to build a case around Methodist time will fail miserably, since you're relying on the least realiable clock that day.
who said 4 documents rely on one clock? :D
-
who said 4 documents rely on one clock? :D
None of your four documents reference any clock, and all are second, third, or fourth-hand accounts. As such they are usless for what you think you can prove.
-
None of your four documents reference any clock, and all are second, third, or fourth-hand accounts. As such they are usless for what you think you can prove.
BS: Those are official time documents
-
think you meant CE 705 and not CD 705?
I meant CE 705 (which is what I said).
The CE705 transcripts were hastily done by people weren't transcriptionists. They aren't very good, to say the least. The best transcripts of channel one traffic made by Russ Shearer using the Dix tape. They are, by far, the beast and most complete transcript of channel one traffic.
The "best" by what criteria? Only somebody with access to the original belts would be able to make that determination. If the transcripts differ, perhaps the dubs did too.
-
In the 70's, Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz interviewed a nurse named Thompson, who was one of the Methodist ER staff attending to Tippit that afternoon. She said that the Methodist ER clock was off by 15 minutes that day. Dale Myers interviewed Dr Mohlenhoff, who assisted Dr Liguori's attempt to resuscitate Tippit. Mohlenhoff said that any timing discrepancy would have been due to issues with the Methodist time system. Therefore, your attempt to build a case around Methodist time will fail miserably, since you're relying on the least realiable clock that day.
And James Bowles said:
1. No exact record of "time" exists
2. The several clocks were not synchronized
3. The radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio
So there is no basis whatever to gauge the relative reliability of any of the various time claims.
Beside, this is all moot anyway, given that there is no way to determine how much time elapsed between the actual shooting and the "hello police operator call", even if you could accurately pinpoint when that happened.
-
lol - All clocks are wrong except for the time that implicate Oswald. :D
Bowley said his watch could have been off, therefore it WAS. Todd hangs around laundromats looking for who might set a watch by the clock on the wall.
Never did see anyone, therefore it was at least 1:15p https://jfk.boards.net/post/3903/thread
Meanwhile - 3 witnesses corroborate the earlier time of shooting (before 1:10p) - He just doesn't like them.
4 Documents also indicating an earlier time of death are obviously fudged. https://jfk.boards.net/post/57/thread
And no matter how many times he says it. The dicta belt times just cannot be relied upon. - It is garbage.
The Eyewitnesses who said the guy was Oswald
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
The Jacket eyewitnesses
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver which exclusively matched the shells Oswald dropped at the scene.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
-
And James Bowles said:
1. No exact record of "time" exists
2. The several clocks were not synchronized
3. The radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio
So there is no basis whatever to gauge the relative reliability of any of the various time claims.
Beside, this is all moot anyway, given that there is no way to determine how much time elapsed between the actual shooting and the "hello police operator call", even if you could accurately pinpoint when that happened.
The Police radio time check @12:30 was synchronized with the Hertz time clock @12:30 above the TSBD.
(https://i.postimg.cc/13P79zsV/12-30-in-sync.jpg)
Up to 1:16 the Police radio had no indication of Tippit's murder by Oswald.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNthN3K8/police-tape-live-1-16-time-check.jpg)
And finally, some time after the 1:16 time check and before the 1:19 time check we have a concerned witness(Benavides and/or Bowley) giving details to Police dispatch.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xjZWHHKN/Tippit-murder-on-police-radio.jpg)
JohnM
-
The "best" by what criteria? Only somebody with access to the original belts would be able to make that determination. If the transcripts differ, perhaps the dubs did too.
"Best" as in the transcript matches up more precisely to the recordings than any other alternative.
If you want to argue that there was a copy of the recording that conforms to CE 705, you need to provide evidence of it. Otherwise, that notion is just some random invention.
-
BS: Those are official time documents
It doesn't matter what you call them. None of your four documents reference any clock, and all are second, third, or fourth-hand accounts.
Further, three of your four sources work just fine with the Bowley transmission clocking in at 1:18 +/- 2 min.
-
It doesn't matter what you call them. None of your four documents reference any clock, and all are second, third, or fourth-hand accounts.
Further, three of your four sources work just fine with the Bowley transmission clocking in at 1:18 +/- 2 min.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't think you do either.
-
The Police radio time check @12:30 was synchronized with the Hertz time clock @12:30 above the TSBD.
That was channel 2.
-
"Best" as in the transcript matches up more precisely to the recordings than any other alternative.
Matches up, according to you, to recordings you have been told are original. If you want to argue that some later tape dubs conform to the original dictabelts, you need to provide evidence of it. Otherwise, that notion is just some random invention.
-
It doesn't matter what you call them. None of your four documents reference any clock, and all are second, third, or fourth-hand accounts.
Further, three of your four sources work just fine with the Bowley transmission clocking in at 1:18 +/- 2 min.
Your "1:18 +/- 2 min" invention doesn't reference any clock and isn't even a second, third, or fourth-hand account.
-
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't think you do either.
I know exactly what I'm arguing. I've been through all this in detail before elsewhere on this forum. So far, all you managed to do is throw some semi-random references to vaguely argued threads on another forum.
-
I know exactly what I'm arguing. I've been through all this in detail before elsewhere on this forum. So far, all you managed to do is throw some semi-random references to vaguely argued threads on another forum.
:D
-
I know exactly what I'm arguing. I've been through all this in detail before elsewhere on this forum. So far, all you managed to do is throw some semi-random references to vaguely argued threads on another forum.
So far, all you’ve done is assert that the recordings you’ve heard are continuous and original merely because you hear no 4 second gaps in an existing copy. Gaps can be edited too. And you have yet to acknowledge that your alleged calculated time of the “hello police operator” broadcast still tells us nothing about the time Tippit was shot.
-
What about that axiom that the simple solution is probably the correct one.? So isn’t the proposition that Oswald was double timing a simple way to make the timeline work out so that Markams 1:06-7 sighting and Bowleys 1:10 watch and Calloway’s estimate match up fairly well with the 1:15 DOA by the emergency doctor?
And double timing is certainly a plausible action that an anxious, upset , worried Oswald would do if his intention was to leave TSBD and get back to his boarding house asap to get a revolver?
It’s really an argument about why Oswald was so upset anxious paranoid etc, that he felt compelled to return to his boarding house as his 1st priority rather than to seek out his wife and children and assure their safety.
LN : this is what a crazy person who just shot the President would do so it’s not surprising that he shot Tippit on his way to see a movie.
CT :Oswald’s paranoia was for other reason. It could be from indirect involvement in some way or suspicion about something or someone whom Oswald knew like Jack Ruby. So Oswald’s decision to prioritize boarding house was to get the revolver and then where Oswald exactly was headed may not have originally been the theater.
Conclusion: Double timing is the simple way to make the timeline work allowing Oswald to have shot Tippit at 1:08. Paranoia is a good reason Oswald was double timing. Prioritizing boarding house over family therefore was a self preservation act to get a revolver to deal with the most immediate threat perceived by a paranoid Oswald which was that he might himself be the next victim due to his association with characters like Jack Ruby or that the FBI or CIA had set him up. The shooting of Tippit therefore does not de facto mean that Oswald was the JFK assassin.
-
What about that axiom that the simple solution is probably the correct one.? So isn’t the proposition that Oswald was double timing a simple way to make the timeline work out so that Markams 1:06-7 sighting and Bowleys 1:10 watch and Calloway’s estimate match up fairly well with the 1:15 DOA by the emergency doctor?
And double timing is certainly a plausible action that an anxious, upset , worried Oswald would do if his intention was to leave TSBD and get back to his boarding house asap to get a revolver?
It’s really an argument about why Oswald was so upset anxious paranoid etc, that he felt compelled to return to his boarding house as his 1st priority rather than to seek out his wife and children and assure their safety.
LN : this is what a crazy person who just shot the President would do so it’s not surprising that he shot Tippit on his way to see a movie.
CT :Oswald’s paranoia was for other reason. It could be from indirect involvement in some way or suspicion about something or someone whom Oswald knew like Jack Ruby. So Oswald’s decision to prioritize boarding house was to get the revolver and then where Oswald exactly was headed may not have originally been the theater.
Conclusion: Double timing is the simple way to make the timeline work allowing Oswald to have shot Tippit at 1:08. Paranoia is a good reason Oswald was double timing. Prioritizing boarding house over family therefore was a self preservation act to get a revolver to deal with the most immediate threat perceived by a paranoid Oswald which was that he might himself be the next victim due to his association with characters like Jack Ruby or that the FBI or CIA had set him up. The shooting of Tippit therefore does not de facto mean that Oswald was the JFK assassin.
If you'd just shot JFK from the TSBD and gotten away, would you walk fast / jog for about a mile through a residential neighborhood and risk bringing attention to yourself?
-
I should clarify that the double timing could have been periodic as opposed to consistent, so that at times Oswald was just walking.
If the double timing was periodically just at times of traveling to the bus and then to taxi and then from taxi to house, it’s possible that Oswald could have left his house as early as 12:55 and thus he could have walked the distance of 0.9 mile to 10th/Patton without any more double timing.
There were lots of people running around in Dealey plaza so Oswald periodically jogging is not so implausible.
So I guess I am a CT that agrees with LNs that it’s possible that Oswald could have shot Tippit just as I agree with LNs that it’s possible that at Z224 a single bullet is impacting both JFK and JC.
Where I disagree is about why Oswald shot Tippit and that CE 399 was the single bullet.
My opinion is that Oswald was NOT the assassin , but that he DID get paranoid by the horror of the assassination , thought himself to be in imminent danger ,and is the reason he went to boarding house 1st, to get his revolver.
My opinion about the CE 399 bullet is that it was a bullet that replaced the bullet that hit JFK and JC because the original bullet recovered from JC was a different shaped bullet (conical shaped) hence not a ball shaped 6.5 mm MC bullet.
-
If the double timing was periodically just at times of traveling to the bus and then to taxi and then from taxi to house, it’s possible that Oswald could have left his house as early as 12:55 and thus he could have walked the distance of 0.9 mile to 10th/Patton without any more double timing.
It's more than 0.9 miles, because the witnesses said the man was walking west on 10th towards Patton.
-
It's more than 0.9 miles, because the witnesses said the man was walking west on 10th towards Patton.
It's completely possible that Oswald was walking west on Tenth and arrive at the Tippit encounter at 1:16.
Speculation, but possible:
12:33 - Leaves the Depository
12:40 - Boards the McWatters bus
12:44 - Departs the bus
12:48 - Enters Whaley's cab
12:53/12:54 - Exits Whaley's cab at Beckley & Neely
12:59 - Arrive at rooming house
1:00 - Leave rooming house ("Long enough to grab a jacket and put it on" - Earlene Roberts)
1:01 - Begin walking south on Beckley form the bus stop outside rooming house
1:12 - Arrive at Tenth & Patton for the first time
1:14 - Walking east on Tenth, arrive at curve on Tenth Street, see Sherriff's Deputy Unit 109 east of the curve and do an about-face, now walking west on Tenth
1:16 - Encounter Tippit
-
If Oswald was walking south on Beckley then he changed to going east on 8th st then southeast on Crawford (which is the most direct way to get to the Marsalis Zoo). That’s going southeast away from the theater and then if he cut over to Patton st means Oswald turned going eastward which is even more going away from the theatre.
If Will Fritz notes are true (?)and Oswald had stated he was going to see the movies, then Beckley is probably the most likely route Oswald would taken after leaving the boarding room.
For some reason Oswald changed direction and started heading southeast towards the Marsalis Zoo park by taking Crawford . He then changed direction again when he turned east to cut over to Patton st probably using 10th st.
So Oswald must have crossed over Patton going east on 10th st some distance when Tippit came down 10th from the west? And that caused Oswald to about face abruptly and go back westward towards Patton again?
If Tippit had not been in this area and Oswald had continued going east along 10th then he was apparently going somewhere else other than the theater or the Zoo. Coincidentally , he would have been getting closer to Jack Rubys apartment.
I can only speculate that perhaps a police car drove down Beckley st when Oswald was going south on Beckley and that’s what caused Oswald to change course to head to the Zoo by cutting over to Crawford.
Why did Oswald to give up continuing traveling southeast on Crawford (heading to the Zoo ) and change direction again heading east to cut over to Patton st?
There’s another speculative route Oswald could have taken if he was intending to try avoid police cars and that’s to go east immediately after leaving the boarding house. This route would be tge the one to take if going to the Zoo or to Rubys apartment by using secondary roads such as Patton.
But then Oswald would have been likely seen going south on Patton st by Markam would he not?
Or if not then Oswald going south on Patton would have to turn east on 10th and be heading east some distance when Tippit approached from the west on 10th causing Oswald to about face.
So it’s the same question either route, where was Oswald headed for when he was going east on 10 th st after having either crossed over Patton (or turned at Patton ) to go eastward on 10th?
I think therefore that Jack Rubys apartment is a plausible alternative , especially if Oswald was hearing police car sirens or had spotted at least one police car when he came out of his boarding room. ( possibly the car that Earlene Robert’s had seen and heard?)
-
There is no evidence whatsoever that anybody did an "about-face". If he had, witnesses would have seen him pass by twice.
-
Mr.I , that seems to be the conclusion I was going to eventually arrive at, except for the possibility of the timing of Markam being too late to have seen Oswald cross over Patton st going east on 10th.
But if that’s the.case then Oswald had to get to 10th st /Patton st intersection much earlier than 1:07 and it’s already rather a problem getting him there by 1:07 ( requiring a lot of intermittent double timing) a method which LN Tom
has questioned as to be unlikely for someone to do who does not wish to draw attention to himself.
So I guess that’s why the LN Bill solution is to avoid the whole 1:06-1:07 timeline of Markam and Bowley as unreliable because their watches are 7 minutes slow (cause they are wind up watches ? ) and instead just go with the DPD clock which apparently is the only correct clock?
This of course requires also suggesting the emergency room clock was 10 minutes slow and thus the doctors DOA time of 1:15 should have really been 1:25.
But the witnesses Mr.I? There’s too many of them picking Oswald as the man they saw so unless it’s an imposter , then somehow Oswald got to 10th st east of Patton st some distance east of the intersection and was walking west to the intersection when he was seen by Markam and followed by Tippit.
Ruling out “about facing” or double timing , and the imposter theory , then either its accept DOD clock time and reject all the other clocks, or else Oswald had to have been given a ride by somebody or was using a bicycle or skateboard between bus, cab, boarding room and then 10th st east of Patton.
-
Mr.I , that seems to be the conclusion I was going to eventually arrive at, except for the possibility of the timing of Markam being too late to have seen Oswald cross over Patton st going east on 10th.
But if that’s the.case then Oswald had to get to 10th st /Patton st intersection much earlier than 1:07 and it’s already rather a problem getting him there by 1:07 ( requiring a lot of intermittent double timing) a method which LN Tom
has questioned as to be unlikely for someone to do who does not wish to draw attention to himself.
So I guess that’s why the LN Bill solution is to avoid the whole 1:06-1:07 timeline of Markam and Bowley as unreliable because their watches are 7 minutes slow (cause they are wind up watches ? ) and instead just go with the DPD clock which apparently is the only correct clock?
This of course requires also suggesting the emergency room clock was 10 minutes slow and thus the doctors DOA time of 1:15 should have really been 1:25.
But the witnesses Mr.I? There’s too many of them picking Oswald as the man they saw so unless it’s an imposter , then somehow Oswald got to 10th st east of Patton st some distance east of the intersection and was walking west to the intersection when he was seen by Markam and followed by Tippit.
Ruling out “about facing” or double timing , and the imposter theory , then either its accept DOD clock time and reject all the other clocks, or else Oswald had to have been given a ride by somebody or was using a bicycle or skateboard between bus, cab, boarding room and then 10th st east of Patton.
So I guess that’s why the LN Bill solution is to avoid the whole 1:06-1:07 timeline of Markam and Bowley as unreliable because their watches are 7 minutes slow (cause they are wind up watches ? ) and instead just go with the DPD clock which apparently is the only correct clock?
I don't ignore anything.
The police tapes tell you that the Tippit shooting occurred around 1:15/1:16.
Fact.
-
But the witnesses Mr.I? There’s too many of them picking Oswald as the man they saw so unless it’s an imposter , then somehow Oswald got to 10th st east of Patton st some distance east of the intersection and was walking west to the intersection when he was seen by Markam and followed by Tippit.
The lineups were egregiously unfair and biased, and thus unreliable as evidence. Many of the "identifications" weren't even lineups.
-
I don't ignore anything.
The police tapes tell you that the Tippit shooting occurred around 1:15/1:16.
Fact.
Calling an unsubstantiated claim a "fact" does not make it one.
The police tapes tell you exactly nothing about what time the shooting occurred.
-
The lineups were egregiously unfair and biased, and thus unreliable as evidence. Many of the "identifications" weren't even lineups.
And let's get real. The chances that every witness at a fair line up selects the same person are minimal.
Take the Davis girls, for example. They heard shots and ran to their front door. Given the distance the shooter had to run from Tippit's car to their front door is minimal, it's amazing just how quickly those girls must have reached the front door, but that aside. They said that when they arrived they saw a man running through their front garden and past the front door. Now how long - be honest - did it take the shooter to pass their front door? Three seconds, four or five?
So, we are asked to believe that two girls who only saw a guy running past their front door for a few seconds, managed to both identify that man hours later during a line up? Really?
Their powers of observation must be phenomenally out of this world!
-
Let's see.....do I pick one of the nicely dressed police detectives, or the guy in the messed-up T-shirt and a cut-up forehead screaming about how unfair the lineup is?
The police are demanding to know "which one?"
Tough call.
-
Let's see.....do I pick one of the nicely dressed police detectives, or the guy in the messed-up T-shirt and a cut-up forehead screaming about how unfair the lineup is?
The police are demanding to know "which one?"
Tough call.
All I can say is if I was viewing a line-up and no one matched the person who I saw, I wouldn't send an innocent man to his death, but perhaps you feel that a handful of average American's are different?
JohnM
-
All I can say is if I was viewing a line-up and no one matched the person who I saw, I wouldn't send an innocent man to his death, but perhaps you feel that a handful of average American's are different?
JohnM
perhaps you feel that a handful of average American's are different
They are! The innocence project frequently gets convictions overturned of people who were wrongly identified by one or more witnesses, who, without malice, actually - incorrectly - believed the arrested man was the one they had seen.
It happens more often than you think.
-
perhaps you feel that a handful of average American's are different
They are! The innocence project frequently gets convictions overturned of people who were wrongly identified by one or more witnesses, who, without malice, actually - incorrectly - believed the arrested man was the one they had seen.
It happens more often than you think.
I'm well aware of the "innocence project" and have read cases of imprisoned innocent men, many of whom were convicted on the say so of an SA'd woman but can you show me a case where half a dozen people all mistakenly identify a suspect in broad daylight in the middle of the day?
But don't forget that there is powerful evidence of Oswald being seen discarding shells that were an exclusive match to the revolver he was arrested with.
Oswald was seen wearing a jacket that was found in a nearby car park that he was identified as entering.
Oswald was arrested without this jacket.
Oswald also used the same revolver in an attempt to kill more Police while being arrested in the Texas Theater.
JohnM
-
I'm well aware of the "innocence project" and have read cases of imprisoned innocent men, many of whom were convicted on the say so of an SA'd woman but can you show me a case where half a dozen people all mistakenly identify a suspect in broad daylight in the middle of the day?
But don't forget that there is powerful evidence of Oswald being seen discarding shells that were an exclusive match to the revolver he was arrested with.
Oswald was seen wearing a jacket that was found in a nearby car park that he was identified as entering.
Oswald was arrested without this jacket.
Oswald also used the same revolver in an attempt to kill more Police while being arrested in the Texas Theater.
JohnM
can you show me a case where half a dozen people all mistakenly identify a suspect in broad daylight in the middle of the day?
That's exactly the point. If six witnesses watch an event, you'll get six different stories, yet here we are to believe that six people agreed about the identity of the same man.
But don't forget that there is powerful evidence of Oswald being seen discarding shells that were an exclusive match to the revolver he was arrested with.
Oswald was seen wearing a jacket that was found in a nearby car park that he was identified as entering.
Oswald was arrested without this jacket.
Oswald also used the same revolver in an attempt to kill more Police while being arrested in the Texas Theater.
None of this is "powerful evidence". For the biggest part it's nothing more than the usual LN assumptions based on misrepresentation of the actual evidence.
-
Let's see.....do I pick one of the nicely dressed police detectives, or the guy in the messed-up T-shirt and a cut-up forehead screaming about how unfair the lineup is?
The police are demanding to know "which one?"
Tough call.
Just an FYI, Oswald would have been wearing the brown arrest shirt over the T-shirt.
Learn the case.
-
can you show me a case where half a dozen people all mistakenly identify a suspect in broad daylight in the middle of the day?
That's exactly the point. If six witnesses watch an event, you'll get six different stories, yet here we are to believe that six people agreed about the identity of the same man.
Perhaps you're unaware of witnesses like Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides and L.J. Lewis, none of whom positively identified Oswald.
You're pretending like it was six out of six who positively identified Oswald,.
The facts are that thirteen witnesses saw the killer shoot and/or flee. But only nine of the thirteen said the guy was Oswald.
This makes your point completely invalid.
-
But don't forget that there is powerful evidence of Oswald being seen discarding shells that were an exclusive match to the revolver he was arrested with.
None of this is "powerful evidence". For the biggest part it's nothing more than the usual LN assumptions based on misrepresentation of the actual evidence.
You ask for "Conclusive Evidence", well here it is.
A number of eyewitnesses saw Oswald empty shells from his revolver. Direct Evidence
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner
Barbara Jeanette Davis: When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
The shells recovered at the scene in evidence are an exclusive match to Oswald's revolver. Forensic Evidence
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
Officer McDonald took the revolver from Oswald. Physical Evidence
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever I hit him, we both fell into the seats. While we were struggling around there, with this hand on the gun--
Mr. BALL - Your left hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Somehow I managed to get this hand in the action also.
Mr. BALL - Your right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.
By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.
The revolver in evidence is the same revolver as was sent to Oswald. Physical Evidence Documentary evidence
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8jQW5xZ/osw-ald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
So we have Direct Evidence.
We have Forensic evidence.
We have Physical Evidence.
We have Documentary Evidence
JohnM
-
Perhaps you're unaware of witnesses like Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides and L.J. Lewis, none of whom positively identified Oswald.
You're pretending like it was six out of six who positively identified Oswald,.
The facts are that thirteen witnesses saw the killer shoot and/or flee. But only nine of the thirteen said the guy was Oswald.
This makes your point completely invalid.
Thumb1:
AUSTIN was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112—723, and advised he could not identify OSWALD as being the person who shot the Dallas police officer
ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify
KINNETH was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not identify OSWALD as being the individual he had observed leaving the scene of the shooting of the Dallas police officer.
LEWIS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD No. 112723, dated August 9, 1963, at which time Mr. LEWIS advised due to the distance from which he observed the individual he would hesitate to state whether the individual was identical with OSWALD.
SMITH advised that he did not believe it was OSWALD when he first saw OSWALD on TV because it looked like OSWALD had light colored hair.
JohnM
-
Perhaps you're unaware of witnesses like Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides and L.J. Lewis, none of whom positively identified Oswald.
You're pretending like it was six out of six who positively identified Oswald,.
The facts are that thirteen witnesses saw the killer shoot and/or flee. But only nine of the thirteen said the guy was Oswald.
This makes your point completely invalid.
Perhaps you're unaware of witnesses like Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides and L.J. Lewis, none of whom positively identified Oswald.
And none of them were at he line up! Go figure!
You're pretending like it was six out of six who positively identified Oswald
I'm not pretending at all. You were the one who brought up "half a dozen".
The facts are that thirteen witnesses saw the killer shoot and/or flee. But only nine of the thirteen said the guy was Oswald.
This makes your point completely invalid.
How did those people know that the man they saw "fleeing" was in fact a killer?
-
You ask for "Conclusive Evidence", well here it is.
A number of eyewitnesses saw Oswald empty shells from his revolver. Direct Evidence
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner
Barbara Jeanette Davis: When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
The shells recovered at the scene in evidence are an exclusive match to Oswald's revolver. Forensic Evidence
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
Officer McDonald took the revolver from Oswald. Physical Evidence
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever I hit him, we both fell into the seats. While we were struggling around there, with this hand on the gun--
Mr. BALL - Your left hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Somehow I managed to get this hand in the action also.
Mr. BALL - Your right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.
By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.
The revolver in evidence is the same revolver as was sent to Oswald. Physical Evidence Documentary evidence
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8jQW5xZ/osw-ald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
So we have Direct Evidence.
We have Forensic evidence.
We have Physical Evidence.
We have Documentary Evidence
JohnM
So we have Direct Evidence.
We have Forensic evidence.
We have Physical Evidence.
We have Documentary Evidence
Too bad none of it is actually conclusive. It might have been if you didn't have to make the assumptions you are making.
-
So we have Direct Evidence.
We have Forensic evidence.
We have Physical Evidence.
We have Documentary Evidence
Too bad none of it is actually conclusive. It might have been if you didn't have to make the assumptions you are making.
Yawn!
You debate like a child, I present rock solid corroborated evidence and you say what amounts to "no it isn't".
JohnM
-
Yawn!
You debate like a child, I present rock solid corroborated evidence and you say what amounts to "no it isn't".
JohnM
I present rock solid corroborated evidence and you say what amounts to "no it isn't".
Well, you say it is, so what's the difference?
And I have told you exactly why evidence which you claim is conclusive really isn't.
All you have to do is eliminate all the assumptions which you mistake for evidence and see what you are left with!
Rock solid.... give me a break :D
-
Perhaps you're unaware of witnesses like Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides and L.J. Lewis, none of whom positively identified Oswald.
And none of them were at he line up! Go figure!
You're pretending like it was six out of six who positively identified Oswald
I'm not pretending at all. You were the one who brought up "half a dozen".
The facts are that thirteen witnesses saw the killer shoot and/or flee. But only nine of the thirteen said the guy was Oswald.
This makes your point completely invalid.
How did those people know that the man they saw "fleeing" was in fact a killer?
I'm not pretending at all. You were the one who brought up "half a dozen".
I brought up no such thing. You're confused.
How did those people know that the man they saw "fleeing" was in fact a killer?
Whether they knew the guy was a killer or not is irrelevant. Stupid question.
-
I brought up no such thing. You're confused.
Whether they knew the guy was a killer or not is irrelevant. Stupid question.
I brought up no such thing. You're confused.
Sorry, my bad. I thought I was replying to a quote from John Mytton, as we were having a conversation.
I completely missed that you jumped in, which explains my confusion.
-
All I can say is if I was viewing a line-up and no one matched the person who I saw, I wouldn't send an innocent man to his death, but perhaps you feel that a handful of average American's are different?
People in general (not just Americans) are easily manipulated by authority figures. Look at all the BS you swallow just because a cop said so.
-
Mr.I and Martin , I generally with your criticisms about the line up. I was mislead by a photo of fake line up in which the other 3 guys are wearing suits while Oswald. Bill set me straight one so that’s why I sometimes agree with LNs on some details.
But the “officially accepted “ line up photo that maybe Bill or Martin is able to post, still I think is probably not fair.
Maybe a definition of what a fair line up would be is in order. I’m not really sure, but Oswald has a cut over his eye and looks kind of roughed up, then it seems maybe the other 3 guys should appear kind of disheveled in some way also.
And maybe all persons should the same height and wearing the same clothes not different colors and if Oswald was shouting out then the other 3 guys should also shout /protest in some way.
And is 4 people enough? Or should it have been more and if so how many more?
-
Mr.I and Martin , I generally with your criticisms about the line up. I was mislead by a photo of fake line up in which the other 3 guys are wearing suits while Oswald. Bill set me straight one so that’s why I sometimes agree with LNs on some details.
But the “officially accepted “ line up photo that maybe Bill or Martin is able to post, still I think is probably not fair.
Maybe a definition of what a fair line up would be is in order. I’m not really sure, but Oswald has a cut over his eye and looks kind of roughed up, then it seems maybe the other 3 guys should appear kind of disheveled in some way also.
And maybe all persons should the same height and wearing the same clothes not different colors and if Oswald was shouting out then the other 3 guys should also shout /protest in some way.
And is 4 people enough? Or should it have been more and if so how many more?
If I recall correctly line ups 1+2 Oswald was wearing his brown shirt and for line ups 3+4 Oswald was dressed as following.
In this line up, all men appear to be similar height and weight.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TwFwWHfT/oswald-line-upa.jpg)
JohnM
-
So we have Direct Evidence.
We have Forensic evidence.
We have Physical Evidence.
We have Documentary Evidence[/b][/size]
BS:
You have a gun with no chain of custody, and a bunch of stories.
-
Whether they knew the guy was a killer or not is irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant. You can't see a "killer" if you see no "killing". Nor can you tell somebody is "fleeing" if you witnessed nothing to be "fled" from.
You're just using loaded language to try to bolster a weak argument.
-
Maybe a definition of what a fair line up would be is in order.
It's fairly well understood what is necessary to make a lineup as objective and unbiased as possible.
- Fillers should generally resemble each other and the suspect
- Fillers and the suspect should be dressed alike
- Fillers should resemble the witness's pre-lineup description of the suspect
- There should be a minimum of 5 fillers
- The person administering the lineup should not know who the suspect is
- If the suspect has an unusual or unique feature that would make him stand out then it should be concealed, or the fillers should have the same thing artificially added
- Witnesses should not attend lineups together
- The witness should not be visible to the suspect or fillers
- The suspect's position in each lineup should be randomly placed
- Witnesses should be told that the suspect may or may not be in the lineup
- Witnesses should be asked how certain they are of the identification
- Witnesses should not have been biased by media reports prior to the lineup
- Witnesses shouldn't be pressured to make a selection
https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/eyewitness/eyewitness_id.html (https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/eyewitness/eyewitness_id.html)
-
Perhaps it is you who needs to "learn the case".
(https://i.vgy.me/tWB3tG.png)
Maybe you should read your own posts, Bill was responding to your post about the line up with the two policemen and Oswald was wearing his brown shirt at the time whereas the example you gave was a completely different line-up! DOH!
EDIT, I see you removed your post after you realized your HUGE mistake. Good!
JohnM
-
If I recall correctly line ups 1+2 Oswald was wearing his brown shirt and for line ups 3+4 Oswald was dressed as following.
Yeah, maybe Bill needs to "learn the case".
In this line up, all men appear to be similar height and weight.
Two teenagers and a Mexican.
By the way, the Mexican filler, Lujan, testified that the Satur-day lineup never even took place. Even though there were supposedly results from it.
Mr. LUJAN. He was shouting. He--he was shouting, said all of us had a shirt on and he had a T-shirt on. He wanted a shirt or something.
Mr. BALL. Did the detective say anything to you--or him?
Mr. LUJAN. No, sir; just took us out. They didn't have the showup. Left about a minute.
Mr. BALL. Then you left?
Mr. LUJAN. Yes; took us out back to the cell.
-
Maybe you should read your own posts, Bill was responding to your post about the line up with the two policemen and Oswald was wearing his brown shirt at the time whereas the example you gave was a completely different line-up! DOH!
He was still wearing a messed up T-shirt. DOH!
EDIT, I see you removed your post after you realized your HUGE mistake. Good!
No, I removed it because I saw that you had already made the point. Yet another flawed "Mytton" assumption.
-
Two teenagers and a Mexican.
By the way, the Mexican filler, Lujan, testified that the SaPersonay lineup never even took place. Even though there were supposedly results from it.
Mr. LUJAN. He was shouting. He--he was shouting, said all of us had a shirt on and he had a T-shirt on. He wanted a shirt or something.
Mr. BALL. Did the detective say anything to you--or him?
Mr. LUJAN. No, sir; just took us out. They didn't have the showup. Left about a minute.
Mr. BALL. Then you left?
Mr. LUJAN. Yes; took us out back to the cell.
A Mexican with similar colouring to Oswald, the Dallas Police used the men they had available or should they have had a nation wide casting call?
Mr. BALL. What did the other man look like in the showup with you?
Mr. LUJAN. Oh, about my coloring, and about----
Mr. BALL. Same coloring?
Mr. LUJAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Or anywhere near the coloring of Oswald?
Mr. LUJAN. Yes, sir.
Or perhaps they should have quickly created a supply of clones? But even that wouldn't satisfy you!
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTfV3NFN/OZZIE-CLONES.png)
JohnM
-
Ok there’s 4 lineups? Which line up and How were the other 3 guys dressed and their appearance when Markam was there?
-
A Mexican with similar colouring to Oswald, the Dallas Police used the men they had available or should they have had a nation wide casting call?
Maybe they could have done better than nicely dressed police detectives, two teenagers, and a Mexican. But of course they weren't going for a fair lineup.
Or perhaps they should have quickly created a supply of clones? But even that wouldn't satisfy you!
You are satisfied with any weak, ridiculous nonsense that you think supports your fantasies.
-
I brought up no such thing. You're confused.
Sorry, my bad. I thought I was replying to a quote from John Mytton, as we were having a conversation.
I completely missed that you jumped in, which explains my confusion.
No worries.
-
Well the standard in 63 for line ups was inferior to what is considered fair today if Mr I list is the current standard.
So judging from 2025 standards , the line ups were not as fair as they could or should have been, just as the handling of evidence in 63 was also lower standard.
By today’s standards then , must we discard a lot of the evidence as not acceptable if there’s a faulty chain of custody and 63 line up standard faulty also?
That Bugliosi Mock Trial was aptly named I guess :)
-
Yeah, maybe Bill needs to "learn the case".
I was clearly referring to the Friday night lineups. Everyone knows Oswald no longer had the brown arrest shirt after the Friday night press conference.
Your point is invalid.
-
In the Friday line up, Oswald had the cut and bruised eye, and he’s looking pretty ragged compared to the other 3 guys with their hair combed and dressed in different type and color shirts.
But perhaps the eyewitnesses at this 1st lineup recognized Oswald’s face more than any other detail?
Markams WC testimony at least seems to confirm she recognizes Oswald’s face. But the then she got confused about the question if she’s ever seen no. 2 (Oswald) before.
Imo, it’s the word “before” which perhaps Markam is mistaking to mean had she ever seen Oswald prior to having seen him on that day of Friday Oct 63.
-
Well the standard in 63 for line ups was inferior to what is considered fair today if Mr I list is the current standard.
So judging from 2025 standards , the line ups were not as fair as they could or should have been, just as the handling of evidence in 63 was also lower standard.
By today’s standards then , must we discard a lot of the evidence as not acceptable if there’s a faulty chain of custody and 63 line up standard faulty also?
That Bugliosi Mock Trial was aptly named I guess :)
Absolutely. Even if that was "just the way they did things back then", all that means is that they had a habit of doing invalid lineups at the time. It doesn't magically make them any more reliable. The standards were developed because "the way they did things back then" was not valid.
-
I was clearly referring to the Friday night lineups. Everyone knows Oswald no longer had the brown arrest shirt after the Friday night press conference.
Your point is invalid.
No, my point stands. Whether he had the tattered brown shirt on or not, he still was in a messed-up T-shirt and had a cut-up forehead and was screaming about how unfair the lineup is.
-
No, my point stands. Whether he had the tattered brown shirt on or not, he still was in a messed-up T-shirt and had a cut-up forehead and was screaming about how unfair the lineup is.
Maybe that's what the KGB told him to do.
-
No, my point stands. Whether he had the tattered brown shirt on or not, he still was in a messed-up T-shirt and had a cut-up forehead and was screaming about how unfair the lineup is.
Stop it. If he had the brown shirt on, the T-shirt was completely irrelevant.
-
How much of Oswald’s t-shirt was visible when he was in the 1st line up wearing his ragged brown shirt?
In the next lineups that followed latter had any witnesses seen photos of Oswald arrested the day before or hours before and or had they seen any TV camera recordings of Oswald being arrested?
If they did , does that disqualify the witness ID of Oswald by current law or is it irrelevant?
-
Stop it. If he had the brown shirt on, the T-shirt was completely irrelevant.
The messed-up brown shirt with missing buttons? How would that prevent somebody from noticing the messed-up T-shirt?
-
The messed-up brown shirt with missing buttons? How would that prevent somebody from noticing the messed-up T-shirt?
Completely unrelated to the point you were TRYING to make when you first mentioned the T-shirt.
-
No, my point stands. Whether he had the tattered brown shirt on or not, he still was in a messed-up T-shirt and had a cut-up forehead and was screaming about how unfair the lineup is.
Whether he had the tattered brown shirt on or not
How is that a problem, you keep using circular logic and assuming eyewitnesses make decisions based on the Oswald we know, but from their POV the man who was wearing the brown shirt could have simply been a bum they grabbed to fill the line-up.
he still was in a messed-up T-shirt
In what way was his T-shirt messed up, the fact that in those line-ups Oswald wasn't wearing the jacket and brown shirt gave him a distinct advantage.
and had a cut-up forehead
What's that got to do with the price of fish, this assumption that Oswald having a scratch on his head made eyewitnesses pick him is simply absurd but having a different appearance from when they saw Oswald earlier, again gave Oswald an advantage.
and was screaming about how unfair the lineup is.
Because Oswald had eyes, he could see the other people in the line-up and knew that they were all about the same size and build and dressed different to each other, therefore everyone had an equal chance but Oswald knowing that he was seen by multiple people at the scene of the crime, simply used this as a tactic for the inevitable trial.
But let's get serious, if Oswald was truly innocent why would he even say anything?
(https://i.postimg.cc/TwFwWHfT/osw-ald-line-upa.jpg)
JohnM
-
Oswald had NO advantage at all in the line ups.
They had fill-ins that looked nothing like him or the witness descriptions.
Police officers dressed in suit jackets - collared shirt and dress slacks - vests, or button down sweaters - blonde hair and some much heavier.
Oswald complained about the process loudly and incessantly - Held for 44+ hours with no attorney.
Leavelle to the witnesses: "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer.
We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him."
https://jfk.boards.net/post/1268/thread
-
Oswald must be really stupid, crazy , or what?
1. He leaves behind rifle with serial no. that links rifle to his fake name ID and his own real name P.O. Box
2. He also ordered the revolver using the same fake ID.
3. Writes on the mail order form in his own handwriting style.
4. After shooting JFK , Oswald now supposedly in a hurry to get out of TSBD asap, takes off his brown shirt after being seen by Baker in the lunchroom, leaving it in the lunchroom.
5. Oswald then slowly walks from lunchroom into the 2nd floor office rear door at approx 2 minutes post shots wearing only his T-shirt and carrying a full bottle of coke. Mrs Reid sees no brown shirt wrapped around Oswald’s waist or stuffed in his pants as he slowly walks towards her.
6. Oswald then exited the front door of the office and had to travel another 100 ft back down the outer hallway , thru vestibule and then some distance into lunchroom to recover and put back on his brown shirt. Maybe he also retrieved his jacket there too and put it on ( but who knows?)
7. Then this Oswald in a hurry to get out of TSBD asap as the theory goes, lingers around on the 1st floor in the front lobby long enough to have met 2 reporters ( Allman and McNeil).
8. Oswald apparently then did NOT go out the front door of TSBD if Buell W. Frazier saw Oswald coming up Houston st from the back side of TSBD.(maybe BWF is just having a 50 year late memory fog?) IDK
9. Still presumably in a hurry, Oswald walks 7 blocks to get on a bus which is obviously oriented to go BACK to TSBD. ??
10. Maybe McWatters was confusing another man and Bledsoe is just a kook who could not possibly have seen a hole in Oswald’s brown shirt because he was NOT YET wearing it. So maybe this part of the trek can be tossed out as unsubstantiated.
12. So possibly Oswald just walked from TSBD directly to the Whaley Taxi and was able to board the taxi as early as 12:40? But he sits in the FRONT seat? Seems odd for an assassin who fears that surveillance FBI might be near the house (or following the cab) to more easily see Oswald in the front seat. And To let the cab driver have much closer view to Oswald’s face?
12. Okay, stopping the cab 5 blocks from the house is maybe not so stupid, but coming into the front door entrance of the house?
13. The next move though , is really stupid, crazy or what? If Oswalds intent was to get his revolver it’s incredibly stupid then to carry the fake ID in his wallet that links the revolver to that fake name ( as well as linking rifle serial no.)
14. The final and most stupid crazy (or what?) move is to pull out revolver and shoot Tippit in view of several witness, then linger at the scene throwing out shells one by one, and then dropping his wallet with fake ID there at the scene. ( Or, if the wallet was found on Oswald after being arrested? It’s even more stupid crazy to carry both gun and ID after shooting Tippit.
If it’s a pre event conspiracy to frame Oswald , what is the minimum no. Of people needed?
If it’s a post event frame of Oswald for expediency so LBJ can change the JFK Vietnam foreign policy asap ( in 3 days) what’s the minimum no. of people required?
Is there some other CT theory like MK Ultra mind control that could make this a minimal conspiracy and would explain the stupid/crazy or what? actions of Oswald.
How plausible that Oswald planned this out this way because he thought he could implicate himself just enough to get arrested and then have a spectacular trial where his chosen prominent lawyer convinces the jury it was all a setup?
Answer: It’s possible but not really that plausible because Oswald shooting Tippet in public way is WAY too risky and really not necessary since he already left enough potential evidence at the TSBD if he is carrying his fake ID in his wallet. If Oswald’s motive was fame for being accused of assassination of JFK , and being exonerated via “I’m a Patsy” argument .,then shooting a cop is a stupid move because now a substantial no. The public might be less sympathetic to that argument.
So I’m leaning towards either MK ultra mind control as a simple CT option that causes Oswald to be stupid/crazy or what? or I can reconsider the WC theory that Oswald was just a natural Marxist left wing kook.
Problems that remain however, that upset either option, are Dorothy Garner on the 4th floor, CE399, and only 4.8 secs to shoot 3 shots if Z224 is most likely the 1st shot fired. And the missing bullet.
-
Oswald must be really stupid, crazy , or what?
1. He leaves behind rifle with serial no. that links rifle to his fake name ID and his own real name P.O. Box
2. He also ordered the revolver using the same fake ID.
3. Writes on the mail order form in his own handwriting style.
4. After shooting JFK , Oswald now supposedly in a hurry to get out of TSBD asap, takes off his brown shirt after being seen by Baker in the lunchroom, leaving it in the lunchroom.
5. Oswald then slowly walks from lunchroom into the 2nd floor office rear door at approx 2 minutes post shots wearing only his T-shirt and carrying a full bottle of coke. Mrs Reid sees no brown shirt wrapped around Oswald’s waist or stuffed in his pants as he slowly walks towards her.
6. Oswald then exited the front door of the office and had to travel another 100 ft back down the outer hallway , thru vestibule and then some distance into lunchroom to recover and put back on his brown shirt. Maybe he also retrieved his jacket there too and put it on ( but who knows?)
7. Then this Oswald in a hurry to get out of TSBD asap as the theory goes, lingers around on the 1st floor in the front lobby long enough to have met 2 reporters ( Allman and McNeil).
8. Oswald apparently then did NOT go out the front door of TSBD if Buell W. Frazier saw Oswald coming up Houston st from the back side of TSBD.(maybe BWF is just having a 50 year late memory fog?) IDK
9. Still presumably in a hurry, Oswald walks 7 blocks to get on a bus which is obviously oriented to go BACK to TSBD. ??
10. Maybe McWatters was confusing another man and Bledsoe is just a kook who could not possibly have seen a hole in Oswald’s brown shirt because he was NOT YET wearing it. So maybe this part of the trek can be tossed out as unsubstantiated.
12. So possibly Oswald just walked from TSBD directly to the Whaley Taxi and was able to board the taxi as early as 12:40? But he sits in the FRONT seat? Seems odd for an assassin who fears that surveillance FBI might be near the house (or following the cab) to more easily see Oswald in the front seat. And To let the cab driver have much closer view to Oswald’s face?
12. Okay, stopping the cab 5 blocks from the house is maybe not so stupid, but coming into the front door entrance of the house?
13. The next move though , is really stupid, crazy or what? If Oswalds intent was to get his revolver it’s incredibly stupid then to carry the fake ID in his wallet that links the revolver to that fake name ( as well as linking rifle serial no.)
14. The final and most stupid crazy (or what?) move is to pull out revolver and shoot Tippit in view of several witness, then linger at the scene throwing out shells one by one, and then dropping his wallet with fake ID there at the scene. ( Or, if the wallet was found on Oswald after being arrested? It’s even more stupid crazy to carry both gun and ID after shooting Tippit.
If it’s a pre event conspiracy to frame Oswald , what is the minimum no. Of people needed?
If it’s a post event frame of Oswald for expediency so LBJ can change the JFK Vietnam foreign policy asap ( in 3 days) what’s the minimum no. of people required?
Is there some other CT theory like MK Ultra mind control that could make this a minimal conspiracy and would explain the stupid/crazy or what? actions of Oswald.
How plausible that Oswald planned this out this way because he thought he could implicate himself just enough to get arrested and then have a spectacular trial where his chosen prominent lawyer convinces the jury it was all a setup?
Answer: It’s possible but not really that plausible because Oswald shooting Tippet in public way is WAY too risky and really not necessary since he already left enough potential evidence at the TSBD if he is carrying his fake ID in his wallet. If Oswald’s motive was fame for being accused of assassination of JFK , and being exonerated via “I’m a Patsy” argument .,then shooting a cop is a stupid move because now a substantial no. The public might be less sympathetic to that argument.
So I’m leaning towards either MK ultra mind control as a simple CT option that causes Oswald to be stupid/crazy or what? or I can reconsider the WC theory that Oswald was just a natural Marxist left wing kook.
Problems that remain however, that upset either option, are Dorothy Garner on the 4th floor, CE399, and only 4.8 secs to shoot 3 shots if Z224 is most likely the 1st shot fired. And the missing bullet.
Oswald must be really stupid, crazy , or what?
Oswald was both stupid and crazy.
Who defects to the enemy at the height of the cold war?
Who after painfully discovering that his trip to Russia was a colossal failure because he envisioned himself as having a significant impact, comes crawling back to America?
Who after being denied entrance to Russia has a hissy fit and slashes his own wrists and then writes in his "Historic Diary" that he decided to "end it" and that Rimma will come to "find me dead" and to top it off, the Russians put Oswald in the "insanity ward"
Who beats his wife.
Who attempts to kill General Walker, does a sane man kill someone he doesn't even know for a cause?
Who uses an alias to buy murder weapons.
Who kills a President?, if that isn't absolutely bonkers crazy then I don't know what is.
Who kills a poor cop for simply stopping him.
Who tries to kill more cops when he's arrested.
Who tells the most absurd lies to his interrogators.
Oswald was a disturbed young man who through violence sought to change the World.
JohnM
-
Oswald was both stupid and crazy.
Who defects to the enemy at the height of the cold war?
Who after painfully discovering that his trip to Russia was a colossal failure because he envisioned himself as having a significant impact, comes crawling back to America?
Who after being denied entrance to Russia has a hissy fit and slashes his own wrists and then writes in his "Historic Diary" that he decided to "end it" and that Rimma will come to "find me dead" and to top it off, the Russians put Oswald in the "insanity ward"
Who beats his wife.
Who attempts to kill General Walker, does a sane man kill someone he doesn't even know for a cause?
Who uses an alias to buy murder weapons.
Who kills a President?, if that isn't absolutely bonkers crazy then I don't know what is.
Who kills a poor cop for simply stopping him.
Who tries to kill more cops when he's arrested.
Who tells the most absurd lies to his interrogators.
Oswald was a disturbed young man who through violence sought to change the World.
JohnM
Oswald was both stupid and crazy.
Really? Did you know the man personally or are you just accepting at face value the BS others have told you?
-
Oswald was both stupid and crazy.
Really? Did you know the man personally or are you just accepting at face value the BS others have told you?
Huh? I don't have to know Hitler personally to establish he was both "stupid and crazy".
JohnM
-
Huh? I don't have to know Hitler personally to establish he was both "stupid and crazy".
JohnM
So, I don't have to know you personally to establish that you are "stupid and crazy" and not to be taken seriously?
-
So, I don't have to know you personally to establish that you are "stupid and crazy" and not to be taken seriously?
Unlike Hitler and Oswald who we know very well, outside of this Forum you have no idea of who I am, making your analogy pointless.
JohnM
-
Unlike Hitler and Oswald who we know very well, outside of this Forum you have no idea of who I am, making your analogy pointless.
JohnM
You don't know Oswald very well.
Everything you know or think you know about Oswald has been told to you.
outside of this Forum you have no idea of who I am
That works both ways, yet you see fit to time after time make comments about me, like this most recent one;
Whereas the only highly successful businessmen Martin knows are the ones he sees on the telly!
Go figure....
-
You don't know Oswald very well.
You don't know this case very well.
JohnM
-
You don't know this case very well.
JohnM
Another childish reply from a troll who hasn't got a reasonable come back after having been given a massive beating again!
The best indicator for when you know that you have lost the argument is that you either run away from the conversation or that you get nasty.
Let's see how your ego deals with this one :D
-
Another childish reply from a troll who hasn't got a reasonable come back after having been given a massive beating again!
The best indicator for when you know that you have lost the argument is that you either run away from the conversation or that you get nasty.
Let's see how your ego deals with this one :D
OMG, what an over the top, disproportionate reaction? Look Martin, it's clear you are having serious problems and if you need someone to talk to, I'm just a PM away!
Oswald's life and who he was has been extensively studied, here is just but one.
Chapter 7
Chapter 7: Lee Harvey Oswald: Background and Possible Motives
Introduction
The Early Years
New York City
Return to New Orleans and Joining the Marine Corps
Interest in Marxism
Defection to the Soviet Union
Return to United States
Personal Relations
Employment
Attack on General Walker
Political Activities
Interest in Cuba
Possible Influence of Anti-Kennedy Sentiment in Dallas
Relationship with Wife
The Unanswered Questions
Conclusion
THE EVIDENCE reviewed above identifies Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy and indicates that he acted alone in that event. There is no evidence that he had accomplices or that he was involved in any conspiracy directed to the assassination of the President. There remains the question of what impelled Oswald to conceive and to carry out the assassination of the President of the United States. The Commission has considered many possible motives for the assassination, including those which might flow from Oswald's commitment to Marxism or communism, the existence of some personal grievance, a desire to effect changes in the structure of society or simply to go down in history as a well publicized assassin. None of these possibilities satisfactorily explains Oswald's act if it is judged by the standards of reasonable men. The motives of any man, however, must be analyzed in terms of the character and state of mind of the particular individual involved. For a motive that appears incomprehensible to other men may be the moving force of a man whose view of the world has been twisted, possibly by factors of which those around him were only dimly aware. Oswald's complete state of mind and character are now outside of the power of man to know. He cannot, of course, be questioned or observed by those charged with the responsibility for this report or by experts on their behalf. There is, however, a large amount of material available in his writings and in the history of his life which does give some insight into his character and, possibly, into the motives for his act.
Since Oswald is dead, the Commission is not able to reach any definite conclusions as to whether or not he was "sane" under prevailing legal standards. Under our system of justice no forum could properly make that determination unless Oswald were before it. It certainly could not be made by this Commission which, as has been pointed out above, ascertained the facts surrounding the assassination but did not draw conclusions concerning Oswald's legal guilt.
Indications of Oswald's motivation may be obtained from a study of the events, relationships and influences which appear to have been
Page 376
significant in shaping his character and in guiding him. Perhaps the most outstanding conclusion of such a study is that Oswald was profoundly alienated from the world in which he lived. His life was characterized by isolation, frustration, and failure. He had very few, if any, close relationships with other people and he appeared to have great difficulty in finding a meaningful place in the world. He was never satisfied with anything. When he was in the United States he resented the capitalist system which he thought was exploiting him and others like him. He seemed to prefer the Soviet Union and he spoke highly of Cuba.1 When he was in the Soviet Union, he apparently resented the Communist Party members, who were accorded special privileges and who he thought were betraying communism, and he spoke well of the United States.2 He accused his wife of preferring others to himself and told her to return to the Soviet Union without him but without a divorce. At the same time he professed his love for her and said that he could not get along without her.3 Marina Oswald thought that he would not be happy anywhere, "Only on the moon, perhaps." 4
While Oswald appeared to most of those who knew him as a meek and harmless person, he sometimes imagined himself as "the Commander" 5 and, apparently seriously, as a political prophet--a man who said that after 20 years he would be prime minister.6 His wife testified that he compared himself with great readers of history. Such ideas of grandeur were apparently accompanied by notions of oppression.7 He had a great hostility toward his environment, whatever it happened to be, which he expressed in striking and sometimes violent acts long before the assassination. There was some quality about him that led him to act with an apparent disregard for possible consequences.8 He defected to the Soviet Union, shot at General Walker, tried to go to Cuba and even contemplated hijacking an airplane to get there. He assassinated the President, shot Officer Tippit, resisted arrest and tried to kill another policeman in the process.
Oswald apparently started reading about communism when he was about 15. In the Marines, he evidenced a strong conviction as to the correctness of Marxist doctrine, which one associate described as "irrevocable," but also as "theoretical"; that associate did not think that Oswald was a Communist.9 Oswald did not always distinguish between Marxism and communism. 10 He stated several times that he was a Communist but apparently never joined any Communist Party.11
His attachment to Marxist and Communist doctrine was probably, in some measure, an expression of his hostility to his environment. While there is doubt about how fully Oswald understood the doctrine which he so often espoused, it seems clear that his commitment to Marxism was an important factor influencing his conduct during his adult years. It was an obvious element in his decision to go to Russia and later to Cuba and it probably influenced his decision to shoot at General Walker. It was a factor which contributed to his character
Page 377
and thereby might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy.
The discussion below will describe the events known to the Commission which most clearly reveals the formation and nature of Oswald's character. It will attempt to summarize the events of his early life, his experience in New York City and in the Marine Corps, and his interest in Marxism. It will examine his defection to the Soviet Union in 1959, his subsequent return to the United States and his life here after June of 1962. The review of the latter period will evaluate his personal and employment relations, his attempt to kill General Walker, his political activities, and his unsuccessful attempt to go to Cuba in late September of 1963. Various possible motives will be treated in the appropriate context of the discussion outlined above.
The Early Years
Significant in shaping the character of Lee Harvey Oswald was the death of his father, a collector of insurance premiums. This occurred 2 months before Lee was born in New Orleans on October 18, 1939.12 That death strained the financial fortunes of the remainder of the Oswald family. It had its effect on Lee's mother, Marguerite, his brother Robert, who had been born in 1934, and his half-brother John Pic, who had been born in 1932 during Marguerite's previous marriage.13 It forced Marguerite Oswald to go to work to provide for her family.14 Reminding her sons that they were orphans and that the family's financial condition was poor, she placed John Pic and Robert Oswald in an orphans' home.15 From the time Marguerite Oswald returned to work until December 26, 1942, when Lee too was sent to the orphans' home, he was cared for principally by his mother's sister, by babysitters and by his mother, when she had time for him.16
Marguerite Oswald withdrew Lee from the orphans' home and took him with her to Dallas when he was a little over 4 years old.17 About 6 months later she also withdrew John Pic and Robert Oswald.18 Apparently that action was taken in anticipation of her marriage to Edwin A. Ekdahl, which took place in May of 1945.19 In the fall of that year John Pic and Robert Oswald went to a military academy where they stayed, except for vacations, until the spring of 1948.20 Lee Oswald remained with his mother and Ekdahl,21 to whom he became quite attached. John Pic testified that he thought Lee found in Ekdahl the father that he never had.22 That situation, however, was short-lived, for the relations between Marguerite Oswald and Ekdahl were stormy and they were finally divorced, after several separations and reunions, in the summer of 1948.23
After the divorce Mrs. Oswald complained considerably about how unfairly she was treated, dwelling on the fact that she was a widow with three children. John Pic, however, did not think her position was worse than that of many other people.24 In the fall of 1948 she told John Pic and Robert Oswald that she could not afford to send them back to the military school and she asked Pic to quit school
Page 378
entirely to help support the family, which he did for 4 months in the fall of 1948.25 In order to supplement their income further she falsely swore that Pic was 17 years old so that he could join the Marine Corps Reserves.26 Pic did turn over part of his income to his mother, but he returned to high school in January of 1949, where he stayed until 3 days before he was scheduled to graduate, when he left school in order to get into the Coast Guard.27 Since his mother did not approve of his decision to continue school he accepted the responsibility for that decision himself and signed his mother's name to all his own excuses and report cards.28
Pic thought that his mother overstated her financial problems and was unduly concerned about money. Referring to the period after the divorce from Ekdahl, which was apparently caused in part by Marguerite's desire to get more money from him, Pic said: "Lee was brought up in this atmosphere of constant money problems, and I am sure it had quite an effect on him, and also Robert." 29 Marguerite Oswald worked in miscellaneous jobs after her divorce from Ekdahl.30 When she worked for a time as an insurance saleslady, she would sometimes take Lee with her, apparently leaving him alone in the car while she transacted her business.31 When she worked during the school year, Lee had to leave an empty house in the morning, return to it for lunch and then again at night, his mother having trained him to do that rather than to play with other children.32
An indication of the nature of Lee's character at this time was provided in the spring of 1950, when he was sent to New Orleans to visit the family of his mother's sister, Mrs. Lillian Murret, for 2 or 3 weeks. Despite their urgings, he refused to play with the other children his own age.33 It also appears that Lee tried to tag along with his older brothers but apparently was not able to spend as much time with them as he would have liked, because of the age gaps of 5 and 7 years, which became more significant as the children grew older.34
Return to Top
New York City
Whatever problems may have been created by Lee's home life in Louisiana and Texas, he apparently adjusted well enough there to have had an average, although gradually deteriorating, school record with no behavior or truancy problems. That was not the case, however, after he and his mother moved to New York in August of 1952, shortly before Lee's 13th birthday. They moved shortly after Robert joined the Marines; they lived for a time with John Pic who was stationed there with the Coast Guard.35 Relations soon became strained, however,36 so in late September Lee and his mother moved to their own apartment in the Bronx.37 Pic and his wife would have been happy to have kept Lee, however, who was becoming quite a disciplinary problem for his mother, having struck her on at least one occasion.38
The short-lived stay with the Pics was terminated after an incident in which Lee allegedly pulled out a pocket knife during an argument
Page 379
and threatened to use it on Mrs. Pic. When Pic returned home, Mrs. Oswald tried to play down the event but Mrs. Pic took a different view and asked the Oswalds to leave. Lee refused to discuss the matter with Pic, whom he had previously idolized, and their relations were strained thereafter. 39
On September 30, 1952, Lee enrolled in P.S. 117,40 a junior high school in the Bronx, where the other children apparently teased him because of his "western" clothes and Texas accent.41 He began to stay away from school, preferring to read magazines and watch television at home by himself. 42 This continued despite the efforts of the school authorities and, to a lesser extent, of his mother to have him return to school. 43 Truancy charges were brought against him alleging that he was "beyond the control of his mother insofar as school attendance is concerned." 44 Oswald was remanded for psychiatric observation to Youth House, an institution in which children are kept for psychiatric observation or for detention pending court appearance or commitment to a child-caring or custodial institution such as a training school. 45 He was in Youth House from April 16 to May 7, 1953,46 during which time he was examined by its Chief Psychiatrist, Dr. Renatus Hartogs, and interviewed and observed by other members of the Youth House staff. 47
Marguerite Oswald visited her son at Youth House, where she recalled that she waited in line "with Puerto Ricans and Negroes and everything." 48 She said that her pocketbook was searched "because the children in this home were such criminals, dope fiends, and had been in criminal offenses, that anybody entering this home had to be searched in case the parents were bringing cigarettes or narcotics or anything." 49 She recalled that Lee cried and said, "Mother, I want to get out of here. There are children in here who have killed people, and smoke. I want to get out." 50 Marguerite Oswald said that she had not realized until then in what kind of place her son had been confined. 51
On the other hand, Lee told his probation officer, John Carro, that "while he liked Youth House he miss[ed] the freedom of doing what he wanted. He indicated that he did not miss his mother." 52 Mrs. Evelyn D Siegel, a social worker who interviewed both Lee and his mother while Lee was confined in Youth House, reported that Lee "confided that the worse thing about Youth House was the fact that he had to be with other boys all the time, was disturbed about disrobing in front of them, taking showers with them etc." 53
Contrary to reports that appeared after the assassination, the psychiatric examination did not indicate that Lee Oswald was a potential assassin, potentially dangerous, that "his outlook on life had strongly paranoid overtones" or that he should be institutionalized.54 Dr. Hartogs did find Oswald to be a tense, withdrawn, and evasive boy who intensely disliked talking about himself and his feelings. He noted that Lee liked to give the impression that he did not care for other people but preferred to keep to himself, so that he was not bothered and did not have to make the effort of communicating. Os-
Page 380
wald's withdrawn tendencies and solitary habits were thought to be the result of "intense anxiety, shyness, feelings of awkwardness and insecurity." 55 He was reported to have said "I don't want a friend and I don't like to talk to people" and "I dislike everybody." 56 He was also described as having a "Vivid fantasy life, turning around the topics of omnipotence and power, through which he tries to compensate for his present shortcomings and frustrations." 57 Dr. Hartogs summarized his report by stating:
This 13 year old well built boy has superior mental resources and functions only slightly below his capacity level in spite of chronic truancy from school which brought him into Youth House. No finding of neurological impairment or psychotic mental changes could be made. Lee has to be diagnosed as "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive--aggressive tendencies." Lee has to be seen as an emotionally, quite disturbed youngster who suffers under the impact of really existing emotional isolation and deprivation, lack of affection, absence of family life and rejection by a self involved and conflicted mother.58
Dr. Hartogs recommended that Oswald be placed on probation on condition that he seek help and guidance through a child guidance clinic. There, he suggested, Lee should be treated by a male psychiatrist who could substitute for the lack of a father figure. He also recommended that Mrs. Oswald seek "psychotherapeutic guidance through contact with a family agency." The possibility of commitment was to be considered only if the probation plan was not successful. 59
Lee's withdrawal was also noted by Mrs. Siegel, who described him as a "seriously detached, withdrawn youngster." 60 She also noted that there was "a rather pleasant, appealing quality about this emotionally starved, affectionless youngster which grows as one speaks to him." 61 She thought that he had detached himself from the world around him because "no one in it ever met any of his needs for love." 62 She observed that since Lee's mother worked all day, he made his own meals and spent all his time alone because he didn't make friends with the boys in the neighborhood. She thought that he "withdrew into a completely solitary and detached existence where he did as he wanted and he didn't have to live by any rules or come into contact with people." 63 Mrs. Siegel concluded that Lee "just felt that his mother never gave a damn for him. He always felt like a burden that she simply just had to tolerate." 64 Lee confirmed some of those observations by saying that he felt almost as if there were a veil between him and other people through which they could not reach him, but that he preferred the veil to remain intact. He admitted to fantasies about being powerful and sometimes hurting and killing people, but refused to elaborate on them. He took the position that such matters were his own business. 65
Page 381
A psychological human figure-drawing test corroborated the interviewer's findings that Lee was insecure and had limited social contacts. Irving Sokolow, a Youth House psychologist reported that:
The Human Figure Drawings are empty, poor characterizations of persons approximately the same age as the subject. They reflect a considerable amount of impoverishment in the social and emotional areas. He appears to be a somewhat insecure youngster exhibiting much inclination for warm and satisfying relationships to others. There is some indication that he may relate to men more easily than to women in view of the more mature conceptualisation. He appears slightly withdrawn and in view of the lack of detail within the drawings this may assume a more significant characteristic. He exhibits some difficulty in relationship to the maternal figure suggesting more anxiety in this area than in any other.66
Lee scored an IQ of 118 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. According to Sokolow, this indicated a "present intellectual functioning in the upper range of bright normal intelligence." 67 Sokolow said that although Lee was "presumably disinterested in school subjects he operates on a much higher than average level." 68 On the Monroe Silent Reading Test, Lee's score indicated no retardation in reading speed and comprehension; he had better than average ability in arithmetical reasoning for his age group. 69
Lee told Carro, his probation officer, that he liked to be by himself because he had too much difficulty in making friends. 70 The reports of Carro and Mrs. Siegel also indicate an ambivalent attitude toward authority on Oswald's part. Carro reported that Lee was disruptive in class after he returned to school on a regular basis in the fall of 1953. He had refused to salute the flag and was doing very little, if any, work. It appears that he did not want to do any of the things which the authorities suggested in their efforts to bring him out of the shell into which he appeared to be retreating.71 He told Mrs. Siegel that he would run away if sent to a boarding school. On the other hand he also told her that he wished his mother had been more firm with him in her attempts to get him to return to school. 72
The reports of the New York authorities indicate that Lee's mother gave him very little affection and did not serve as any sort of substitute for a father. Furthermore she did not appear to understand her own relationship to Lee's psychological problems. After her interview with Mrs. Oswald, Mrs. Siegel described her as a smartly dressed, gray haired woman, very self-possessed and alert and superficially affable," but essentially a "defensive, rigid, self-involved person who had real difficulty in accepting and relating to people" and who had "little understanding" of Lee's behavior and of the "protective shell he has drawn around himself." 73 Dr. Hartogs reported that Mrs. Oswald did not understand that Lee's withdrawal was a form of "violent but silent protest against his neglect by her and represents his reac-
Page 382
tion to a complete absence of any real family life." 74 Carro reported that when questioned about his mother Lee said, "well I've got to live with her. I guess I love her." 75 It may also be significant that, as reported by John Pic, "Lee slept with my mother until I joined the service in 1950. This would make him approximately 10, well, almost 11 years old." 76
The factors in Lee Oswald's personality which were noted by those who had contact with him in New York indicate that he had great difficulty in adapting himself to conditions in that city. His usual reaction to the problems which he encountered there was simply withdrawal. Those factors indicated a severe inability to enter into relationships with other people. In view of his experiences when he visited his relatives in New Orleans in the spring of 1950, and his other solitary habits, Lee had apparently been experiencing similar problems before going to New York, and as will be shown below, this failure to adapt to. his environment was a dominant trait in his later life.
It would be incorrect, however, to believe that those aspects of Lee's personality which were observed in New York could have led anyone to predict the outburst of violence which finally occurred. Carro was the only one of Oswald's three principal observers who recommended that he be placed in a boy's home or similar institution. 77 But Carro was quite specific that his recommendation was based primarily on the adverse factors in Lee's environment--his lack of friends, the apparent unavailability of any agency assistance and the ineffectualness of his mother--and not on any particular mental disturbance, in the boy himself.78 Carro testified that:
There was nothing that would lead me to believe when I saw him at the age of 12 that them would be seeds of destruction for somebody. I couldn't in all honesty sincerely say such a thing. 79
Mrs. Siegel concluded her report with the statement that:
Despite his withdrawal, he gives the impression that he is not so difficult to reach as he appears and patient, prolonged effort in a sustained relationship with one therapist might bring results. There are indications that he has suffered serious personality damage but if he can receive help quickly this might be repaired to some extent.80
Lee Oswald never received that help. Few social agencies even in New York were equipped to provide the kind of intensive treatment that he needed, and when one of the city's clinics did find room to handle him, for some reason the record does not show, advantage was never taken of the chance afforded to Oswald. When Lee became a disciplinary problem upon his return to school in the fall of 1953, and when his mother failed to cooperate in any way with school authorities, authorities were finally forced to consider placement in a home for boys. Such a placement was postponed, however, perhaps in part at
Page 383
least because Lee's behavior suddenly improved. Before the court took any action, the Oswalds left New York 81 in January of 1954, and returned to New Orleans where Lee finished the ninth grade before he left school to work for a year. 82 Then in October of 1956, he joined the Marines. 83
Return to Top
Return to New Orleans and Joining the Marine Corps
After his return to New Orleans Oswald was teased at school because of the northern accent which he had acquired.84 He concluded that school had nothing to offer him. 85 His mother exercised little control over him and thought he could decide for himself whether to go on in school.86 Neighbors and others who knew him at that time recall an introverted boy who read a great deal.87 He took walks and visited museums, and sometimes rode a rented bicycle in the park on SaPersonay mornings.88 Mrs. Murret believes that he talked at length with a girl on the telephone, but no one remembers that he had any dates. 89 A friend, Edward Voebel, testified that "he was more bashful about girls than anything else." 90
Several witnesses testified that Lee Oswald was not aggressive. 91 He was, however, involved in some fights. Once a group of white boys beat him up for sitting in the Negro section of a bus, which he apparently did simply out of ignorance. 92 Another time, he fought with two brothers who claimed that he had picked on the younger of them, 3 years Oswald's junior. Two days later, "some big guy, probably from a high school--he looked like a tremendous football player" accosted Oswald on the way home from school and punched him in the mouth, making his lip bleed and loosening a tooth. Voebel took Oswald back to the school to attend to his wounds, and their "mild friendship" stemmed from that incident.93 Voebel also recalled that Oswald once outlined a plan to cut the glass in the window of a store on Rampart Street and steal a pistol, but he was not sure then that Oswald meant to carry out the plan, and in fact they never did. Voebel said that Oswald "wouldn't start any fights, but if you wanted to start one with him, he was going to make sure that he ended it, or you were going to really have one, because he wasn't going to take anything from anybody." 94 In a space for the names of "close friends" on the ninth grade personal history record, Oswald first wrote "Edward Vogel," an obvious misspelling of Voebel's name, and "Arthor Abear," most likely Arthur Hebert, a classmate who has said that he did not know Oswald well. Oswald erased those names, however, and indicated that he had no close friends.95
It has been suggested that this misspelling of names, apparently on a phonetic basis, was caused by a reading-spelling disability from which Oswald appeared to suffer.96 Other evidence of the existence of such a disability is provided by the many other misspellings that appear in Oswald's writings, portions of which are quoted below.
Sometime during this period, and under circumstances to be discussed more fully below, Oswald started to read Communist litera-
Page 384
ture, which he obtained from the public library.97 One of his fellow employees, Palmer McBride, stated that Oswald said he would like to kill President Eisenhower because he was exploiting the working class. 98 Oswald praised Khrushchev and suggested that he and McBride join the Communist Party "to take advantage of their social functions." 99 Oswald also became interested in the New Orleans Amateur Astronomy Association, an organization of high school students. The association's then president, William E. Wulf, testified that he remembered an occasion when Oswald
... started expounding the Communist doctrine and saying that he was highly interested in communism, that communism was the only way of life for the worker, et cetera, and then came out with a statement that he was looking for a Communist cell in town to join but he couldn't find any. He was a little dismayed at this, and he said that he couldn't find any that would show any interest in him as a Communist, and subsequently, after this conversation, my father came in and we were kind of arguing back and forth about the situation, and my father came in the room, heard what we were arguing on communism, and that this boy was loud-mouthed, boisterous, and my father asked him to leave the house and politely put him out of the house, and that is the last I have seen or spoken with Oswald. 100
Despite this apparent interest in communism, Oswald tried to join the Marines when he was 16 years old.101 This was 1 year before his actual enlistment and just a little over 2.5 years after he left New York. He wrote a note in his mother's name to school authorities in New Orleans saying that he was leaving school because he and his mother were moving to San Diego. In fact, he had quit school in an attempt to obtain his mother's assistance to join the Marines.102 While he apparently was able to induce his mother to make a false statement about his age he was nevertheless unable to convince the proper authorities that he was really 17 years old.103 There is evidence that Oswald was greatly influenced in his decision to join the Marines by the fact that his brother Robert had done so approximately 3 years before. 104 Robert Oswald had given his Marine Corps manual to his brother Lee, who studied it during the year following his unsuccessful attempt to enlist until "He knew it by heart." 105 According to Marguerite Oswald, "Lee lived for the time that he would become 17 years old to join the Marines--that whole year." 106 In John Pic's view, Oswald was motivated to join the Marines in large part by a desire "to get from out and under ... the yoke of oppression from my mother." 107
Oswald's inability or lack of desire to enter into meaningful relationships with other people continued during this period in New Orleans (1954-56). 108 It probably contributed greatly to the general dissatisfaction which he exhibited with his environment, a dissatisfaction which seemed to find expression at this particular point in his
Page 385
intense desire to join the Marines and get away from his surroundings and his mother. His study of Communist literature, which might appear to be inconsistent with his desire to join the Marines, could have been another manifestation of Oswald's rejection of his environment.109
His difficulty in relating to other people and his general dissatisfaction with the world around him continued while he was in the Marine Corps. Kerry Thornley, a marine associate, who, shortly after Oswald's defection, wrote an as yet unpublished novel based in considerable part on Oswald's life, testified that "definitely the Marine Corps was not what he had expected it to be when he joined." He said that Oswald "seemed to guard against developing real close friendships." 110 Daniel Powers, another marine who was stationed with Oswald for part of his marine career, testified that Oswald seemed "always [to be] striving for a relationship, but whenever he did ... his general personality would alienate the group against him." Other marines also testified that Oswald had few friends and kept very much to himself. 112
While there is nothing in Oswald's military records to indicate that he was mentally unstable or otherwise psychologically unfit for duty in the Marine Corps, 113 he did not adjust well to conditions which he found in that service. 114 He did not rise above the rank of private first class, even though he had passed a qualifying examination for the rank of corporal.115 His Marine career was not helped by his attitude that he was a man of great ability and intelligence and that many of his superiors in the Marine Corps were not sufficiently competent to give him orders.116 While Oswald did not seem to object to authority in the abstract, he did think that he should be the one to exercise it. John E. Donovan, one of his former officers, testified that Oswald thought "that authority, particularly the Marine Corps, ought to be able to recognize talent such as his own, without a given magic college degree, and put them in positions of prominence? 117 Oswald manifested this feeling about authority by baiting his officers. He led them into discussions of foreign affairs about which they often knew less than he did, since he had apparently devoted considerable time to a study of such matters.118 When the officers were unable to discuss foreign affairs satisfactorily with him, Oswald regarded them as unfit to exercise command over him.119 Nelson Delgado, one of Oswald's fellow Marines, testified that Oswald tried to "cut up anybody that was high ranking" in those arguments "and make himself come out top dog.". 120 Oswald probably engaged his superiors in arguments on a subject that he had studied in an attempt to attract attention to himself and to support his exaggerated idea of his own abilities.
Thornley also testified that he thought that Oswald's extreme personal sloppiness in the Marine Corps "fitted into a general personality pattern of his: to do whatever was not wanted of him, a recalcitrant trend in his personality." 121 Oswald "seemed to be a person who would go out of his way to get into trouble" 122 and then used the "special treatment" he received as an example of the way in which
Page 386
he was being picked on and "as a means of getting or attempting to get sympathy." 123 In Thornley's view, Oswald labored under a persecution complex which he strove to maintain and "felt the Marine Corps kept a pretty close watch on him because of his 'subversive' activities." Thornley added: "I think it was kind of necessary to him to believe that he was being picked on. It wasn't anything extreme. I wouldn't go as far as to call it, call him a paranoid, but a definite tendency there was in that direction, I think." 124
Powers considered Oswald to be meek and easily led,125 an "individual that you would brainwash, and quite easy ... [but] I think once he believed in something ... he stood in his beliefs." 126 Powers also testified that Oswald was reserved and seemed to be "somewhat the frail, little puppy in the litter." 127 He had the nickname "Ozzie Rabbit." 128
Oswald read a good deal, said Powers, but "he would never be reading any of the shoot-em-up westerns or anything like that. Normally, it would be a good type of literature; and the one that I recall was 'Leaves of Grass,' by Wait Whitman." 129 According to Powers, Oswald said: "All the Marine Corps did was to teach you to kill and after you got out of the Marines you might be good gangsters." 130 Powers believed that when Oswald arrived in Japan he acquired a girlfriend, "finally attaining a male status or image in his own eyes." 131 That apparently caused Oswald to become more self-confident, aggressive and even somewhat pugnacious, although Powers "wouldn't say that this guy is a troublemaker." 132 Powers said "now he was Oswald the man rather than Oswald the rabbit." 133 Oswald once told Powers that he didn't care if he returned to the United States at all. 134
While in Japan, Oswald's new found apparent self confidence and pugnaciousness led to an incident in which he spilled a drink on one of his sergeants and abusively challenged him to fight.135 At the court-martial hearing which followed, Oswald admitted that he had been rather drunk when the incident occurred. He testified that he had felt the sergeant had a grudge against him and that he had unsuccessfully sought a transfer from the sergeant's unit. He said that he had simply wanted to discuss the question with the sergeant and the drink had been spilled accidentally. The hearing officer agreed with the latter claim but found Oswald guilty of wrongfully using provoking words and sentenced him to 28 days, canceling the suspension of a 20-day sentence that Oswald had received in an earlier court-martial for possessing an unauthorized pistol with which he had accidentally shot himself.136
At his own request, Oswald was transferred from active duty to the Marine Corps Reserve under honorable conditions in September of 1959, 3 months prior to his regularly scheduled separation date, 137 ostensibly to care for his mother who had been injured in an accident at her work.138 He was undesirably discharged from the Marine Corps Reserve, to which he had been assigned on inactive status following his transfer from active duty, after it was learned that he had
Page 387
defected to the Soviet Union.139 In an attempt to have this discharge reversed, Oswald wrote to then Secretary of the Navy Connally on January 30, 1962, stating that he would "employ all means to right this gross mistake or injustice."
Governor Connally had just resigned to run for Governor of Texas, so he advised Oswald that he had forwarded the letter to his successor.141 It is thus clear that Oswald knew that Governor Connally was never directly concerned with his discharge and he must have known that President Kennedy had had nothing to do with it. In that connection, it does not appear that Oswald ever expressed any dissatisfaction of any kind with either the President or Governor Connally.142 Marina Oswald testified that she "had never heard anything bad about Kennedy from Lee. And he never had anything against him." 143 Mrs. Oswald said that her husband did not say anything about Governor Connally after his return to the United States. She testified: "But while we were in Russia he spoke well of him. ... Lee said that when he would return to the United States he would vote for him [for Governor]." 144 Oswald must have already learned that the Governor could not help him with his discharge because he was no longer Secretary of the Navy, at the time he made that remark.
Even though Oswald apparently did not express any hostility against the President or Governor Connally, he continued to be concerned about his undesirable discharge.145 It is clear that he thought he had been unjustly treated. Probably his complaint was due to the fact that his discharge was not related to anything he had done while on active duty and also because he had not received any notice of the original discharge proceedings, since his whereabouts were not known.146 He continued his efforts to reverse the discharge by petitioning the Navy Discharge Review Board, which finally declined to modify the discharge and so advised him in a letter dated July 1963.147
Governor Connally's connection with the discharge, although indirect, caused the Commission to consider whether he might have been Oswald's real target. In that connection, it should be noted that Marina Oswald testified on September 6, 1964, that she thought her husband "was shooting at Connally rather than President Kennedy." In support of her conclusion Mrs. Oswald noted her husband's undesirable discharge and that she could not think of any reason why Oswald would want to kill President Kennedy.148 It should be noted, however, that at the time Oswald fired the shots at the Presidential limousine the Governor occupied the seat in front of the President, and it would have been almost impossible for Oswald to have hit the Governor without hitting the President first. Oswald could have shot the Governor as the car approached the Depository or as it was making the turn onto Elm Street. Once it had started down Elm Street toward the Triple Underpass, however, the President almost completely blocked Oswald's view of the Governor prior to the time the first shot struck the President.150 Furthermore, Oswald would have had other and more favorable opportunities to strike at the Governor than on this occasion
Page 388
when, as a member of the President's party, he had more protection than usual. It would appear, therefore, that to the extent Oswald's undesirable discharge affected his motivation, it was more in terms of a general hostility against the government and its representatives rather than a grudge against any particular person.
Return to Top
Interest in Marxism
As indicated above, Oswald started to read Communist literature after he and his mother left New York and moved to New Orleans.151 He told Aline Mosby, a reporter who interviewed him after he arrived in Moscow:
I'm a Marxist, ... I became interested about the age of 15. From an ideological viewpoint. An old lady handed me a pamphlet about saving the Rosenbergs. ... I looked at that paper and I still remember it for some reason, I don't know why.152
Oswald studied Marxism after he joined the Marines and his sympathies in that direction and for the Soviet Union appear to have been widely known, at least in the unit to which he was assigned after his return from the Far East. His interest in Russia led some of his associates to call him "comrade" 153 or "Oswaldskovitch." 154 He always wanted to play the red pieces in chess because, as he said in an apparently humorous context, he preferred the "Red Army." 155 He studied the Russian language,156 read a Russian language newspaper 157 and seemed interested in what was going on in the Soviet Union.158 Thornley, who thought Oswald had an "irrevocable conviction" that his Marxist beliefs were correct, testified:
I think you could sit down and argue with him for a number of years ... and I don't think you could have changed his mind on that unless you knew why he believed it in the first place. I certainly don't. I don't think with any kind of formal argument you could have shaken that conviction. And that is why I say irrevocable. It was just--never getting back to looking at things from any other way once he had become a Marxist, whenever that was.159
Thornley also testified about an incident which grew out of a combination of Oswald's known Marxist sympathies and George Orwell's book "1984," one of Oswald's favorite books which Thornley read at Oswald's suggestion. Shortly after Thornley finished reading that book the Marine unit to which both men were assigned was required to take part in a SaPersonay morning parade in honor of some retiring noncommissioned officers, an event which they both approached with little enthusiasm. While waiting for the parade to start they talked briefly about "1984" even though Oswald seemed to be lost in his own thoughts. After a brief period of silence Os-
Page 389
wald remarked on the stupidity of the parade and on how angry it made him, to which Thornley replied: "Well, comes the revolution you will change all that." Thornley testified:
At which time he looked at me like a betrayed Caesar and screamed, screamed definitely, "Not you, too, Thornley." And I remember his voice cracked as he said this. He was definitely disturbed at what I had said and I didn't really think I had said that much. ... I never said anything to him again and he never said anything to me again.160
Thornley said that he had made his remark only in the context of "1984" and had not intended any criticism of Oswald's political views which is the way in which, Thornley thought, Oswald took his remarks.161
Lieutenant Donovan testified that Oswald thought that "there were many grave injustices concerning the affairs in the international situation." He recalled that Oswald had a specific interest in Latin America, particularly Cuba, and expressed opposition to the Batista regime and sympathy for Castro, an attitude which, Donovan said, was "not ... unpopular" at that time. Donovan testified that he never heard Oswald express a desire personally to take part in the elimination of injustices anywhere in the world and that he "never heard him in any way, shape or form confess that he was a Communist, or that he ever thought about being a Communist." 162 Delgado testified that Oswald was "a complete believer that our way of government was not quite right" and believed that our Government did not have "too much to offer," but was not in favor of "the Communist way of life." Delgado and Oswald talked more about Cuba than Russia, and sometimes imagined themselves as leaders in the Cuban Army or Government, who might "lead an expedition to some of these other islands and free them too." 163
Thornley also believed that Oswald's Marxist beliefs led to an extraordinary view of history under which:
He looked upon the eyes of future people as some kind of tribunal, and he wanted to be on the winning side so that 10,000 years from-now people would look in the history books and say, "Well, this man was ahead of his time." ... The eyes of the future became ... the eyes of God.... He was concerned with his image in history and I do think that is why he chose ... the particular method [of defecting] he chose and did it in the way he did. It got him in the newspapers. It did broadcast his name out.164
Thornley thought that Oswald not only wanted a place in history but also wanted to live comfortably in the present. He testified that if Oswald could not have that "degree of physical comfort that he expected or sought, I think he would then throw himself entirely on the other thing he also wanted, which was the image in history. ...
Page 390
I think he wanted both if he could have them. If he didn't, he wanted to die with the knowledge that, or with the idea that he was somebody." 165
Oswald's interest in Marxism led some people to avoid him, even though as his wife suggested, that interest may have been motivated by a desire to gain attention.166 He used his Marxist and associated activities as excuses for his difficulties in getting along in the world, which were usually caused by entirely different factors. His use of those excuses to present himself to the world as a person who was being unfairly treated is shown most clearly by his employment relations after his return from the Soviet Union. Of course, he made his real problems worse to the extent that his use of those excuses prevented him from discovering the real reasons for and attempting to overcome his difficulties. Of greater importance, Oswald's commitment to Marxism contributed to the decisions which led him to defect to the Soviet Union in 1959, and later to engage in activities on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in the summer of 1963, and to attempt to go to Cuba late in September of that year.
Return to Top
Defection to the Soviet Union
After Oswald left the Marine Corps in September of 1959, ostensibly to care for his mother, he almost immediately left for the Soviet Union where he attempted to renounce his citizenship. At the age of 19, Oswald thus committed an act which was the most striking indication he had yet given of his willingness to act on his beliefs in quite extraordinary ways.
While his defection resulted in part from Oswald's commitment to Marxism, it appears that personal and psychological factors were also involved. On August 17, 1963, Oswald told Mr. William Stuckey, who had arranged a radio debate on Oswald's activities on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, that while he had begun to read Marx and Engels at the age of 15, the conclusive thing that made him decide that Marxism was the answer was his service in Japan. He said living conditions over there convinced him something was wrong with the system, and that possibly Marxism was the answer. He said it was in Japan that he made up his mind to go to Russia and see for himself how a revolutionary society operates, a Marxist society.167
On the other hand, at least one person who knew Oswald after his return thought that his defection had a more personal and psychological basis.168 The validity of the latter observation is borne out by some of the things Oswald wrote in connection with his defection indicating that his motivation was at least in part a personal one. On November 26, 1959, shortly after he arrived in the Soviet Union, and probably before Soviet authorities had given him permission to stay indefinitely, he wrote to his brother Robert that the Soviet Union
Page 391
was a country which "I have always considered ... to be my own" and that he went there "only to find freedom. ... I could never have been personally happy in the U.S." 169 He wrote in another letter that he would "never return to the United States which is a country I hate." 170 His idea that he was to find "freedom" in the Soviet Union was to be rudely shattered.
Whatever Oswald's reasons for going to the Soviet Union might have been, however, there can be little doubt that his desire to go was quite strong. In addition to studying the Russian language while he was in the Marines, Oswald had managed to save enough money to cover the expenses of his forthcoming trip. While there is no proof that he saved $1,500, as he claimed, it would have taken considerable discipline to save whatever amount was required to finance his defection out of the salary of a low ranking enlisted man.171
The extent of Oswald's desire to go to the Soviet Union and of his initial commitment to that country can best be understood, however, in the context of his concomitant hatred of the United States, which was most clearly expressed in his November 26, 1959, letter to his brother Robert. Addressing himself to the question of why "I and my fellow workers and communist's would like to see the present capitalist government of the U.S. overthrown" Oswald stated that that government supported an economic system "which exploits all its workers" and under which "art, culture and the sprit of man are subjected to commercial enterpraising, [and] religion and education are used as a tool to surpress what would otherwise be a population questioning their government's unfair economic system and plans for war." 172
He complained in his letter about segregation, unemployment, automation, and the use of military forces to suppress other populations. Asking his brother why he supported the American Government and what ideals he put forward, Oswald wrote:
Ask me and I will tell you I fight for communism. ... I will not say your grandchildren will live under communism, look for yourself at history, look at a world map! America is a dicing country, I do not wish to be a part of it, nor do I ever again wish to be used as a tool in its military aggressions.
This should answer your question, and also give you a glimpse of my way of thinking.
So you speak of advantages. Do you think that is why I am here? For personal, material advantages? Happiness is not based on oneself, it does not consist of a small home, of taking and getting, Happiness is taking part in the struggle, where there is no borderline between one's own personal world, and the world in general. I never believed I would find more material advantages at this stage of development in the Soviet Union than I might of had in the U.S. ° ° ° °
Page 392
I have been a pro-communist for years and yet I have never met a communist, instead I kept silent and observed, and what I observed plus my Marxist learning brought me here to the Soviet Union. I have always considered this country to be my own.173
Responding to Robert's statement that he had not "renounced" him, Oswald told his brother "on what terms I want this arrangement." He advised Robert that:
In the event of war I would kill any american who put a uniform on in defense of the american government-- any american.
That in my own mind I have no attachment's of any kind in the U.S.
That I want to, and I shall, live a normal happy and peaceful life here in the Soviet Union for the rest of my life.
That my mother and you are (in spite of what the newspaper said) not objects of affection, but only examples of workers in the U.S.
Despite this commitment to the Soviet Union Oswald met disappointments there just as he had in the past. At the outset the Soviets told him that he could not remain. It seems that Oswald immediately attempted suicide--a striking indication of how much he desired to remain in the Soviet Union.175 It shows how willing he was to act dramatically and decisively when he faced an emotional crisis with few readily available alternatives at hand. He was shocked to find that the Soviet Union did not accept him with open arms. The entry in his self-styled "Historic Diary" for October 21, 1959, reports:
I am shocked!! My dreams! ... I have waited for 2 year to be accepted. My fondes dreams are shattered because of a petty official, ... I decide to end it. Soak fist in cold water to numb the pain, Than slash my leftwrist. Than plaug wrist into bathtub of hot water.... Somewhere, a violin plays, as I watch my life whirl away. I think to myself "How easy to Die" and "A Sweet Death, (to violins) ... 176
Oswald was discovered in time to thwart his attempt at suicide. 177 He was taken to a hospital in Moscow where he was kept until October 28, 1959.178
Still intent, however, on staying in the Soviet Union, Oswald went on October 31, to the American Embassy to renounce his U.S. citizenship. Mr. Richard E. Snyder, then Second Secretary and senior consular official at the Embassy, testified that Oswald was extremely sure of himself and seemed "to know what his mission was. He took charge, in a sense, of the conversation right from the beginning." He presented the following signed note:
I Lee Harvey Oswald do hereby request that my present citizenship in the United States of America, be revoked.
Page 393
I have entered the Soviet Union for the express purpose of applying for citizenship in the Soviet Union, through the means of naturalization.
My request for citizenship is now pending before the Surprem Soviet of the U.S.S.R.
I take these steps for political reasons. My request for the revoking of my American citizenship is made only after the longest and most serious considerations.
I affirm that my allegiance is to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.180 (See Commission Exhibit 913, p. 261.)
As his "principal reason" for renouncing his citizenship Oswald stated: "I am a Marxist." 181 He also alluded to hardships endured by his mother as a worker, referring to them as experiences that he did not intend to have himself,182 even though he stated that he had never held a civilian job.183 He said that his Marine service in Okinawa and elsewhere had given him "a chance to observe 'American imperialism.'" but he also displayed some sensitivity at not having reached a higher rank in the Marine Corps.184 He stated that he had volunteered to give Soviet officials any information that he had concerning Marine Corps operations,185 and intimated that he might know something of special interest.186 Oswald's "Historic Diary" describes the event in part as follows:
I leave Embassy, elated at this showdown, returning to my hotel I feel now my enorgies are not spent in vain. I'm sure Russians will except me after this sign of my faith in them.187
The Soviet authorities finally permitted Oswald to remain in their country.188 No evidence has been found that they used him for any particular propaganda or other political or informational purposes. They sent him to Minsk to work in a radio and television factory as a metal worker.189 The Soviet authorities denied Oswald permission to attend a university in Moscow,190 but they gave him a monthly allowance of 700 rubles a month (old exchange rate)191 in addition to his factory salary of approximately equal amount 192 and considerably better living quarters than those accorded to Soviet citizens of equal age and station.193 The subsidy, apparently similar to those sometimes given to foreigners allowed to remain in the Soviet Union, together with his salary, gave Oswald an income which he said approximated that of the director of the factory in which he worked.194
Even though he received more money and better living quarters than other Russians doing similar work, he envied his wife's uncle, a colonel in the MVD, because of the larger apartment in which he lived. Reminiscent of his attitude toward his superiors in the Marine Corps, Oswald apparently resented the exercise of authority over him and the better treatment afforded to Communist Party officials.195 After he returned to the United States he took the position that the Communist Party officials in the Soviet Union were opportunists who
Page 394
were betraying their positions for personal gain. He is reported to have expressed the conclusion that they had "fat stinking politicians over there just like we have over here." 196
Oswald apparently continued to have personal difficulties while he was in Minsk. Although Marina Oswald told the Commission that her husband had good personal relationships in the Soviet Union,197 Katherine Ford, one of the members of the Russian community in Dallas with which the Oswalds became acquainted upon their arrival in the United States, stated that Mrs. Oswald told her everybody in Russia "hated him." 198 Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, another member of that group, said that Oswald told her that he had returned because "I didn't find what I was looking for." 199 George De Mohrenschildt thought that Oswald must have become disgusted with life in the Soviet Union as the novelty of the presence of an American wore off and he began to be less the center of attention.200
The best description of Oswald's state of mind, however, is set forth in his own "Historic Diary." Under the entry for May 1, 1960, he noted that one of his acquaintances "relats many things I do not know about the U.S.S.R.. I begin to feel uneasy inside, its true!" 201 Under the entry for August-September of that year he wrote:
As my Russian improves I become increasingly conscious of just what sort of a society I live in. Mass gymnastics, complusory afterwork meeting, usually political information meeting. Complusory attendance at lectures and the sending of the entire shop collective (except me) to pick potatoes on a Sunday, at a state collective farm: A "patroict duty" to bring in the harvest. The opions of the workers (unvoiced) are that its a great pain in the neck: they don't seem to be esspicialy enthusiastic about any of the "collective" duties a natural feeling. I am increasingly aware of the presence, in all thing, of Lebizen, shop party secretary, fat, fortyish, and jovial on the outside. He is a no-nonsense party regular.202
Finally, the entry of January 4-31 of 1961:
I am stating to reconsider my disire about staying the work is drab the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No night clubs or bowling allys no places of recreation acept the trade union dances I have have had enough.203
Shortly thereafter, less than 18 months after his defection, about 6 weeks before he met Marina Prusakova, Oswald opened negotiations with the U.S. Embassy in Moscow looking toward his return to the United States.204
Return to Top
Return to the United States
In view of the intensity of his earlier commitment to the Soviet Union, a great change must have occurred in Oswald's thinking to
395
induce him to return to the United States. The psychological effects of that change must have been highly unsettling. It should be remembered that he was not yet 20 years old when he went to the Soviet Union with such high hopes and not quite 23 when he returned bitterly disappointed. His attempt to renounce his citizenship had been an open expression of hostility against the United States and a profound rejection of his early life. The dramatic break with society in America now had to be undone. His return to the United States publicly testified to the utter failure of what had been the most important act of his life.
Marina Oswald confirmed the fact that her husband was experiencing psychological difficulties at the time of his return. She said that "immediately after coming to the United States Lee changed. I did not know him as such a man in Russia." 205 She added that while he helped her as he had done before, he became more of a recluse, that "[he] was very irritable, sometimes for a trifle" and that "Lee was very unrestrained and very explosive" during the period from November 19, 1962 to March of 1963.206
After the assassination she wrote that:
In general, our family life began to deteriorate after we arrived in America. Lee was always hot-tempered, and now this trait of character more and more prevented us from living together in harmony. Lee became very irritable, and sometimes some completely trivial thing would drive him into a rage. I myself do not have a particularly quiet disposition, but I had to change my character a great deal in order to maintain a more or less peaceful family life.207
Marina Oswald's judgment of her husband's state of mind may be substantiated by comparing material which he wrote in the Soviet Union with what he wrote while on the way back to the United States and after his return. While in the Soviet Union he wrote his longest and clearest piece of work, "The Collective." This was a fairly coherent description of life in that country, basically centered around the radio and television factory in which he worked.208 While it was apparently intended for publication in the United States, and is in many respects critical of certain aspects of life in the Soviet Union, it appears to be the work of a fairly well organized person. Oswald prefaced his manuscript with a short autobiographical sketch which reads in part as follows:
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in Oct 1939 in New Orleans La. the son of a Insuraen Salesmen whose early death left a far mean streak of indepence brought on by negleck. entering the US Marine corp at 17 this streak of independence was strengthed by exotic journeys to Japan the Philipines and the scores of odd Islands in the Pacific immianly
-
OMG, what an over the top, disproportionate reaction? Look Martin, it's clear you are having serious problems and if you need someone to talk to, I'm just a PM away!
Oswald's life and who he was has been extensively studied, here is just but one.
Look Martin, it's clear you are having serious problems
So, this time it's the getting nasty approach....
Oswald's life and who he was has been extensively studied, here is just but one.
Exactly what I said; all you know about Oswald is what you have been told.
Thank you for proving my point Thumb1:
-
Look Martin, it's clear you are having serious problems
So, this time it's the getting nasty approach....
Oswald's life and who he was has been extensively studied, here is just but one.
Exactly what I said; all you know about Oswald is what you have been told.
Thank you for proving my point Thumb1:
So, this time it's the getting nasty approach....
You can't be serious, I made an innocuous observation and your pent up rage responded with a torrent of uncontrolled insults, Why Martin?
All I did was reach out and offer a peaceful hand because your attitude is completely unwarranted in proportion to my calm niceness.
Oswald's life and who he was has been extensively studied, here is just but one.
Exactly what I said; all you know about Oswald is what you have been told.
Thank you for proving my point Thumb1:
You're not making your point very convincingly, Oswald's actions, contacts and interactions were widely investigated and therefore a comprehensive picture emerges of exactly who he was. For instance if my life was investigated and my actions were documented and my friends and enemies were interviewed, the man who I am would be revealed.
JohnM
-
Ok, let’s say that JohnM source material is at least to some degree accurate and accept the premise that Oswald has by 1963 left a trail of bizarre actions.
Would not at least the CIA be aware of this trail of behavior and be monitoring Oswald after he defected to the USSR?
If so, then LBJ could know of this bizarre acting defecting USMC s trail of crazy like behavior too yes?
So is it conceivable that LBJ all by himself figured out a simple plan after having gotten information from CIA, FBI, George DeM, etc. that the crazy Oswald had a job in TSBD and had just recently shot at Walker?
The simplest plan of all: Encourage JFK to
visit Dallas and suggest a route that goes thru Dealey plaza that goes right past the TSBD.
And suggest publishing the route several days in advance in all the newspapers.
So it’s not a pre planned elaborate set up , rather it’s just a probability “roll the dice” plan that figured there was better than 50% chance that the defector USMC kook would take a shot if JFK is offer up on a silver platter as a sitting duck in a n open car without the usual SS agents riding in the limo itself.
Perhaps this is why LBJ was ducking down As his car turned onto Houston street approaching the TSBD?
-
You can't be serious, I made an innocuous observation and your pent up rage responded with a torrent of uncontrolled insults, Why Martin?
All I did was reach out and offer a peaceful hand because your attitude is completely unwarranted in proportion to my calm niceness.
You're not making your point very convincingly, Oswald's actions, contacts and interactions were widely investigated and therefore a comprehensive picture emerges of exactly who he was. For instance if my life was investigated and my actions were documented and my friends and enemies were interviewed, the man who I am would be revealed.
JohnM
You're not making your point very convincingly, Oswald's actions, contacts and interactions were widely investigated and therefore a comprehensive picture emerges of exactly who he was. For instance if my life was investigated and my actions were documented and my friends and enemies were interviewed, the man who I am would be revealed.
It's still what you have been told about Oswald. You have no way of knowing if what you are being told is accurate. You just want to believe it is!
It's easy enough to understand that there is a difference between knowing somebody personally or going by what others say about them. So, what is it exactly that you don't understand?
-
You're not making your point very convincingly, Oswald's actions, contacts and interactions were widely investigated and therefore a comprehensive picture emerges of exactly who he was. For instance if my life was investigated and my actions were documented and my friends and enemies were interviewed, the man who I am would be revealed.
It's still what you have been told about Oswald. You have no way of knowing if what you are being told is accurate. You just want to believe it is!
It's easy enough to understand that there is a difference between knowing somebody personally or going by what others say about them. So, what is it exactly that you don't understand?
Your argument that I need to know someone personally to know who they really are is flawed, Serial Killers have neighbours who had a great relationship with the killer and then started to notice a foul odour emanating from their home. You hear it all the time that, I never suspected "Bob", he was such a nice guy.
But if these neighbours had a chance to investigate the history of the real "Bob", and know how he defected to the enemy, had a rifle and a revolver which has virtually untraceable bullets all purchased through an alias, how he tried to commit suicide because he had a temper tantrum, bashed his wife, attempted to assassinate someone who didn't share his views, Killed the President, Killed a nice cop who simply stopped him, tried to kill more cops who arrested him, was diagnosed by a professional when he was young that he needed mental help, that he wagged school for a lot of the school year, was unpleasant, etc etc. Then yes, we have a solid foundation that this man was stupid and crazy!
JohnM
-
Your argument that I need to know someone personally to know who they really are is flawed, Serial Killers have neighbours who had a great relationship with the killer and then started to notice a foul odour emanating from their home. You hear it all the time that, I never suspected "Bob", he was such a nice guy.
But if these neighbours had a chance to investigate the history of the real "Bob", and know how he defected to the enemy, had a rifle and a revolver which has virtually untraceable bullets all purchased through an alias, how he tried to commit suicide because he had a temper tantrum, bashed his wife, attempted to assassinate someone who didn't share his views, Killed the President, Killed a nice cop who simply stopped him, tried to kill more cops who arrested him, was diagnosed by a professional when he was young that he needed mental help, that he wagged school for a lot of the school year, was unpleasant, etc etc. Then yes, we have a solid foundation that this man was stupid and crazy!
JohnM
Your argument that I need to know someone personally to know who they really are is flawed,
That's not my argument. In this case all you know about Oswald is what you have been told. That's my argument!
And since you've misrepresented my argument, everything else you wrote is no more than your usual BS:
Here it is again; ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT OSWALD IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD!
-
I’m not sure , But it looks like that JohnM might agree with me that LBJ could have known that Oswald was stupid and crazy, that he beat his wife, that he probably had shot at Walker, and LBJ knew that much about Oswald several months BEFORE Nov 22/63?
-
Your argument that I need to know someone personally to know who they really are is flawed,
That's not my argument. In this case all you know about Oswald is what you have been told. That's my argument!
And since you've misrepresented my argument, everything else you wrote is no more than your usual BS:
Here it is again; ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT OSWALD IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD!
Your words Martin, not mine!
It's easy enough to understand that there is a difference between knowing somebody personally or going by what others say about them. So, what is it exactly that you don't understand?
JohnM
-
Your words Martin, not mine!
JohnM
What's your point? Isn't there a difference between knowing somebody personally or going by what others say about them?
My argument still stands. You never knew Oswald personally, so all you know (or think you know) about him is what you have been told.
It's not really difficult to understand, so why are you struggling to comprehend?
-
What's your point? Isn't there a difference difference between knowing somebody personally or going by what others say about them?
My argument still stands. You never knew Oswald personally, so all you know (or think you know) about them is what you have been told.
It's not really difficult to understand, so why are you struggling to comprehend?
You made a mistake, it seems that you can't even follow your own arguments and then get unnecessarily testy when confronted with your flawed logic.
My refutation still stands, one person interacting personally with another person over a fraction of that person's life will by definition only tell a partial story of who that person is, but examining their actions and analysing many people interacting with that person over a lifetime will paint a far more accurate picture, it's a simple and concise way to establish who a person is.
For instance your bad attitude, hurling insults and hot temper on this Forum is well documented but if people in your life, tell us that Martin is a nice person because he helps the hungry, donates to charities, volunteers his time to the elderly etc etc, then the person who you are will be established. We are defined across our entire being not just by one persons perspective. See how this works!
JohnM
-
You made a mistake, it seems that you can't even follow your own arguments and then get unnecessarily testy when confronted with your flawed logic.
My refutation still stands, one person interacting personally with another person over a fraction of that person's life will by definition only tell a partial story of who that person is, but examining their actions and analysing many people interacting with that person over a lifetime will paint a far more accurate picture, it's a simple and concise way to establish who a person is.
For instance your bad attitude, hurling insults and hot temper on this Forum is well documented but if people in your life, tell us that Martin is a nice person because he helps the hungry, donates to charities, volunteers his time to the elderly etc etc, then the person who you are will be established. We are defined across our entire being not just by one persons perspective. See how this works!
JohnM
You really must be desperate by now.
So, let's make it easy for you; what do you know about Oswald from personal experience and what do you know about him because others have told you about him?
-
How is that a problem, you keep using circular logic and assuming eyewitnesses make decisions based on the Oswald we know, but from their POV the man who was wearing the brown shirt could have simply been a bum they grabbed to fill the line-up.
In what way was his T-shirt messed up, the fact that in those line-ups Oswald wasn't wearing the jacket and brown shirt gave him a distinct advantage.
Speaking of circular logic, why would that give him an advantage?
But let's get serious, if Oswald was truly innocent why would he even say anything?
Because they were trying to railroad him with blatantly unfair lineups. "Same size and build", my azz.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0016a.jpg)
-
Who defects to the enemy at the height of the cold war?
Who after painfully discovering that his trip to Russia was a colossal failure because he envisioned himself as having a significant impact, comes crawling back to America?
Who after being denied entrance to Russia has a hissy fit and slashes his own wrists and then writes in his "Historic Diary" that he decided to "end it" and that Rimma will come to "find me dead" and to top it off, the Russians put Oswald in the "insanity ward"
Who beats his wife.
Who attempts to kill General Walker, does a sane man kill someone he doesn't even know for a cause?
Who uses an alias to buy murder weapons.
Who kills a President?, if that isn't absolutely bonkers crazy then I don't know what is.
Who kills a poor cop for simply stopping him.
Who tries to kill more cops when he's arrested.
Who tells the most absurd lies to his interrogators.
Oswald was a disturbed young man who through violence sought to change the World.
Or you are disturbed for believing all of that crap...
-
Why didn’t they kick Oswald out of the USMC when he started speaking Russian and praising Castro and the USSR? This was 1958 and its the height of the Cold War and the USMC is willing to tolerate a commie sympathizer and trust him with throwing grenades and shooting auto rifles during the training period?
What about that photo of Oswald in the company of Alpha 66 members at some point during his training?
Then they sent the commie sympathizer kook to the top secret base in Japan where he could have access to codes and listen in on USSR radio traffic.
Then the U2 spy plane getting shot down , and Oswald gets his hardship discharge and then he defects to USSR and gets the job in Minsk.
And Marina Oswald who already previously had met the other defectors , (her uncle being a KGB officer ?) meets Oswald too, they get married , and then back to the USA no problem.
So JohnM could be right that Oswald was just a random kook, but these coincidences seem
to indicate Oswald was a CIA trained kook.
-
Oswald had NO advantage at all in the line ups.
They had fill-ins that looked nothing like him or the witness descriptions.
Police officers dressed in suit jackets - collared shirt and dress slacks - vests, or button down sweaters - blonde hair and some much heavier.
Oswald complained about the process loudly and incessantly - Held for 44+ hours with no attorney.
Leavelle to the witnesses: "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer.
We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him."
https://jfk.boards.net/post/1268/thread
They had fill-ins that looked nothing like him or the witness descriptions.
Police officers dressed in suit jackets
Suit jackets? Do you really believe that? Laughable.
-
Suit jackets? Do you really believe that? Laughable.
Mr. BALL. How were these men dressed that were in this showup?
Mr. BOYD. Well, let me think--some of them had coats and slacks....
Mr. BALL Ables was in his shirt sleeves. What about the two officers, Perry?
Mr. BOYD. Now, I remember Perry had on a coat, but he didn't have his shirt buttoned back up at the top, I remember that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don Ables also looked very nice, in a button down sweater, dress slacks, and a collared shirt.
Mr. BALL - How were you dressed when you went in the showup room?
Mr. ABLES - I was wearing a white shirt and this sweater here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - You have a gray-knit sweater on?
Mr. ABLES - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And dark trousers?
Mr. ABLES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Have a tie on?
Mr. ABLES - No.
Mr. BALL - Then you were dressed about like you are dressed today, is that right?
Mr. ABLES - Yes.
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0271b.jpg)
If I was going to testify before the Warren Commission, I would look my best.
It is a benefit this guy was dressed in nearly the same clothes the day he testified, as he wore in the lineups. He looks sharp.
Lee on the other hand is in a ragged torn shirt and the only one with cuts and bruises on his face, and in later lineups, a T shirt.
He loudly complained about not being allowed a jacket like the others. Line ups simply were not fair. No attorney would have allowed it.
-
Mr. BALL. How were these men dressed that were in this showup?
Mr. BOYD. Well, let me think--some of them had coats and slacks....
Mr. BALL Ables was in his shirt sleeves. What about the two officers, Perry?
Mr. BOYD. Now, I remember Perry had on a coat, but he didn't have his shirt buttoned back up at the top, I remember that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don Ables also looked very nice, in a button down sweater, dress slacks, and a collared shirt.
Mr. BALL - How were you dressed when you went in the showup room?
Mr. ABLES - I was wearing a white shirt and this sweater here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - You have a gray-knit sweater on?
Mr. ABLES - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And dark trousers?
Mr. ABLES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Have a tie on?
Mr. ABLES - No.
Mr. BALL - Then you were dressed about like you are dressed today, is that right?
Mr. ABLES - Yes.
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0271b.jpg)
If I was going to testify before the Warren Commission, I would look my best.
It is a benefit this guy was dressed in nearly the same clothes the day he testified, as he wore in the lineups. He looks sharp.
Lee on the other hand is in a ragged torn shirt and the only one with cuts and bruises on his face, and in later lineups, a T shirt.
He loudly complained about not being allowed a jacket like the others. Line ups simply were not fair. No attorney would have allowed it.
Perry stated that he took off his suit jacket and put on a sports coat.
No other participants in any of the lineups wore a suit jacket.
-
Perry stated that he took off his suit jacket and put on a sports coat.
No other participants in any of the lineups wore a suit jacket.
I never said it was more than one - although Boyd says "some of them" and Bookout said -"jackets on others"
There were only 3 fill ins
Another wore a collared shirt, red vest and dress slacks.
And the third one was "Dapper Don". There he is with a button down sweater, dress slacks and collared shirt.
Meanwhile, Lee had a rats-torn tee shirt, cuts and bruises on his face, and a black eye.
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I recall one of the interviews that he complained about the lineup that he was in,
that he wasn't allowed to wear a jacket similar to jackets worn by others in the lineup.
Lineups were completely unfair and no attorney would've allow them.
-
Well that guy that’s wearing a light almost white jacket and dark pants fits better the description of the shooter than does Oswald only wearing a brown long sleeve shirt.
So that might an advantage for Oswald as long as none of the witness were aware of report of a jacket having been discarded by the shooter.
Not really sure how much was known by witnesses from TV, radio and newspaper reports and photos of Oswald before they picked him out of the lineup.
-
I never said it was more than one - although Boyd says "some of them" and Bookout said -"jackets on others"
There were only 3 fill ins
Another wore a collared shirt, red vest and dress slacks.
And the third one was "Dapper Don". There he is with a button down sweater, dress slacks and collared shirt.
Meanwhile, Lee had a rats-torn tee shirt, cuts and bruises on his face, and a black eye.
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I recall one of the interviews that he complained about the lineup that he was in,
that he wasn't allowed to wear a jacket similar to jackets worn by others in the lineup.
Lineups were completely unfair and no attorney would've allow them.
Well Michael, let's pretend for a moment that the line-ups were unfair.
You with me so far, now consider you were there and saw the guy with a gun, could you be persuaded to pick the wrong guy based on the fact that he had slightly different clothes and a couple of facial injuries?, to be blunt could you send a man to the Electric Chair based on something completely insignificant or would you pick the guy that you actually saw? I actually expect you to be a decent human being and would do the right thing, so would you expect any less of your fellow citizens?
JohnM
-
Well Michael, let's pretend for a moment that the line-ups were unfair.
You with me so far, now consider you were there and saw the guy with a gun, could you be persuaded to pick the wrong guy based on the fact that he had slightly different clothes and a couple of facial injuries?, to be blunt could you send a man to the Electric Chair based on something completely insignificant or would you pick the guy that you actually saw? I actually expect you to be a decent human being and would do the right thing, so would you expect any less of your fellow citizens?
JohnM
It's not slightly different clothes, not at all. That's the problem. It became a process of who are you not going to pick.
Lee stood out from the others who were in dress slacks, collared shirts, sport coats, and button down sweater.
Lee had a black eye - cuts on his face and forehead, left with a ragged t-shirt and complained profusely about it.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7689
-
It's not slightly different clothes, not at all. That's the problem. It became a process of who are you not going to pick.
Lee stood out from the others in dress slacks, collared shirts, sport coats, and button down sweater.
Lee had a black eye - cuts on his face and forehead, left with a ragged t-shirt and complained profusely about it.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7689
So you're saying that if a man was dressed differently and had facial injuries, you'd be compelled to pick him even though he wasn't the man that you saw? Really?
JohnM
-
It's not slightly different clothes, not at all. That's the problem. It became a process of who are you not going to pick.
Lee stood out from the others in dress slacks, collared shirts, sport coats, and button down sweater.
Lee had a black eye - cuts on his face and forehead, left with a ragged t-shirt and complained profusely about it.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7689
Again with the falsehoods. Oswald only wore the "ragged t-shirt" during the lone S a t u r d a y lineup. All of the Friday lineups had him in his brown shirt.
-
Again with the falsehoods. Oswald only wore the "ragged t-shirt" during the lone S a t u r d a y lineup. All of the Friday lineups had him in his brown shirt.
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Cx70NqtS/line-up-oswald.jpg)
They were all dressed differently so no one stood out, Oswald's big mouth was the only difference.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XvXnFLhY/osw-ald-line-up.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZ51R3ts/osw-ald-line-upasd.jpg)
The Satur.day line-up was viewed by Scoggins and Whaley.
Mr. BELIN. Then what happened, or what did you do?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, they was questioning a lot of people and questioning everybody, and they was talking, and so I went back and got on my radio and contacted my supervisor, and they wanted me to come into the office and make a statement, and so I did, the cab company. One of the supervisors got a statement of it, and he asked me did the police, did I give them a statement, and I told him no because, and he said, "Well, why didn't you?"I said, "They didn't ask me. They talked with everybody else."
So the next day they took me down and put me through a lineup, showed me a lineup of four people, and I identified the one that I had seen the day before.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Mr. BALL. Did that aid you in the identification of the man?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; it wouldn't have at all, except that I said anybody who wasn't sure could have picked out the right one just for that. It didn't aid me because I knew he was the right one as soon as I saw him.
Mr. BALL. You don't think that that in any way influenced your identification?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; it did not.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zYS9S10/whaleyoswaldwristband.jpg)
JohnM
-
Again with the falsehoods. Oswald only wore the "ragged t-shirt" during the lone S a t u r d a y lineup. All of the Friday lineups had him in his brown shirt.
You might be right. I need to look into that specifically.
Meanwhile, it was the clothing "the man wore" that was one of the many reasons Brennan could not identify the shooter.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. BRENNAN. I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color
of the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
-
They were all dressed differently so no one stood out, Oswald's big mouth was the only difference.
The Satur.day line-up was viewed by Scoggins and Whaley.
Mr. BELIN. Then what happened, or what did you do?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, they was questioning a lot of people and questioning everybody, and they was talking, and so I went back and got on my radio and contacted my supervisor, and they wanted me to come into the office and make a statement, and so I did, the cab company. One of the supervisors got a statement of it, and he asked me did the police, did I give them a statement, and I told him no because, and he said, "Well, why didn't you?"I said, "They didn't ask me. They talked with everybody else."
So the next day they took me down and put me through a lineup, showed me a lineup of four people, and I identified the one that I had seen the day before.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Mr. BALL. Did that aid you in the identification of the man?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; it wouldn't have at all, except that I said anybody who wasn't sure could have picked out the right one just for that. It didn't aid me because I knew he was the right one as soon as I saw him.
Mr. BALL. You don't think that that in any way influenced your identification?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; it did not.
JohnM
They certainly knew who NOT to pick.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/1268/thread
Scoggins failed the photo line up
And told the Commission: "...seemed like I could see his face..."
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48172118142_e305746002_z.jpg)
-
Again with the falsehoods. Oswald only wore the "ragged t-shirt" during the lone S a t u r d a y lineup. All of the Friday lineups had him in his brown shirt.
Let's not pretend he removed the "ragged t-shirt" underneath the arrest shirt for the Friday lineups.
-
Well Michael, let's pretend for a moment that the line-ups were unfair.
There's no need to pretend. They were blatantly unfair.
You with me so far, now consider you were there and saw the guy with a gun, could you be persuaded to pick the wrong guy based on the fact that he had slightly different clothes and a couple of facial injuries?, to be blunt could you send a man to the Electric Chair based on something completely insignificant or would you pick the guy that you actually saw? I actually expect you to be a decent human being and would do the right thing, so would you expect any less of your fellow citizens?
Your error is in assuming that people are consciously aware of being biased and manipulated by such things.
-
Let's not pretend he removed the "ragged t-shirt" underneath the arrest shirt for the Friday lineups.
No one's pretending anything. I was correcting your error.
-
No one's pretending anything. I was correcting your error.
Was he or was he not still wearing a ragged t-shirt?
You "corrected" nothing.
-
In another thread I’ve almost convinced myself that the bus ticket was actually found in Oswald’s shirt pocket and that it was the initial cause of searching out buses and drivers which led to McWatters.
But now I’m back to how did Oswald get to 10th and Patton by 1:06 according to Markams affidavit?
It’s either the critical witnesses Markam , Bowley watches are 7 minutes slow , the hospital clock 10 minutes slow, while the DPD dispatch clock was the only accurate clock. Otherwise, Oswald had to double time jog just about all the time from TSBD to bus, to Taxi , and from taxi
to house so that he could arrive by 12:52.
It’s still a little inconsistent that Oswald if intention was to get to his boarding room
Asao, would ever take a bus in the 1st place.
However, a person in fear or paranoid might not be thinking like a rational person so maybe that’s why Oswald went to bus 1st.
-
Was he or was he not still wearing a ragged t-shirt?
You "corrected" nothing.
Yes, underneath the brown long-sleeved shirt. Your statement that lineup witnesses saw him in his T-shirt is misleading at best, flat out wrong at worst.
-
In another thread I’ve almost convinced myself that the bus ticket was actually found in Oswald’s shirt pocket and that it was the initial cause of searching out buses and drivers which led to McWatters.
But now I’m back to how did Oswajd get to 10th and Patton by 1:06 according to Markams affidavit?
It’s either the critical witnesses Markam , Bowley watches are 7 minutes slow , the hospital clock 10 minutes slow, while the DPD dispatch clock was the only accurate clock. Otherwise, Oswald had to double time jog just about all the time from TSBD to bus, to Taxi , and from taxi
to house so that he could arrive by 12:52.
It’s still a little inconsistent that Oswald if intention was to get to his boarding room
Asao, would ever take a bus in the 1st place.
However, a person in fear or paranoid might not be thinking like a rational person so maybe that’s why Oswald went to bus 1st.
Zeon, the police tapes tell you that Tippit was gunned down at 1:15/1:16.
I specifically address this in this interview I did with Fred Litwin...
Go to the 56:20 mark:
-
Zeon, the police tapes tell you that Tippit was gunned down at 1:15/1:16.
I specifically address this in this interview I did with Fred Litwin...
Go to the 56:20 mark:
The tapes say no such thing and cannot be relied upon.
-
The tapes say no such thing and cannot be relied upon.
"I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."
Inspector Clouseau
The Police radio time check @12:30 was synchronized with the Hertz time clock @12:30 above the TSBD. And it was confirmed that radio 1 and radio 2 were synchronized to iirc within 17 seconds. This was a very important day in Dallas and having accurate Police times was of tremendous importance, hence the Hertz clock and the Police radio being virtually identical.
(https://i.postimg.cc/13P79zsV/12-30-in-sync.jpg)
Up to 1:16 the Police radio had no indication of Tippit's murder by Oswald.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNthN3K8/police-tape-live-1-16-time-check.jpg)
And finally, some time after the 1:16 time check and before the 1:19 time check we have a concerned witness(Benavides and/or Bowley) giving details to Police dispatch.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xjZWHHKN/Tippit-murder-on-police-radio.jpg)
JohnM
-
Yes, underneath the brown long-sleeved shirt. Your statement that lineup witnesses saw him in his T-shirt is misleading at best, flat out wrong at worst.
You can only see a fraction of the T-shirt?
And why the heck is Oswald smirking?, under the circumstances who would be doing this?
(https://i.ibb.co/m5grXYXQ/oswald-smirkd.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/owhOJZyAP4s/hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEhCK4FEIIDSFryq4qpAxMIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJD&rs=AOn4CLAg8fYNF-nyc3-UtEoaxXiItcPArw)
(https://sites.tufts.edu/emotiononthebrain/files/2014/10/TJ-LANE-1.jpg)
JohnM
-
Yes, underneath the brown long-sleeved shirt. Your statement that lineup witnesses saw him in his T-shirt is misleading at best, flat out wrong at worst.
Are you suggesting that a ragged T-shirt would not be visible underneath a brown long-sleeved shirt, particularly a brown long-sleeved shirt with missing buttons?
(https://wamu.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/gettyimages-510812758_wide-eb267a21ad72ec155f1ff5d599f26e348d0d6cf7.jpg)
-
Zeon, the police tapes tell you that Tippit was gunned down at 1:15/1:16.
BS: The police tapes say nothing about when Tippit was gunned down. It's all an exercise in Bill's imagination.
-
The Police radio time check @12:30 was synchronized with the Hertz time clock @12:30 above the TSBD. And it was confirmed that radio 1 and radio 2 were synchronized to iirc within 17 seconds.
BS:
The 12:30 time check was on channel 2. The broadcasts surrounding the Tippit murder (none of which captured the actual shooting) were on channel 1. Different dispatcher. What "confirmed" they were synchronized? The Hertz clock was of unknown accuracy, as were the dispatcher's clocks.
-
And why the heck is Oswald smirking?, under the circumstances who would be doing this?
This is the sort of desperate, mind-reading measure people without any real evidence have to resort to.
-
This is the sort of desperate, mind-reading measure people without any real evidence have to resort to.
Iacoletti,
When it comes to the JFKA, you're one of the most desperate people I know.
-
Iacoletti,
When it comes to the JFKA, you're one of the most desperate people I know.
Graves,
When it comes to the JFKA, you are one of the most insignificant posters on this forum.
Try to contribute something of substance instead of your typically 5 year old's insults
-
Are you suggesting that a ragged T-shirt would not be visible underneath a brown long-sleeved shirt, particularly a brown long-sleeved shirt with missing buttons?
(https://wamu.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/gettyimages-510812758_wide-eb267a21ad72ec155f1ff5d599f26e348d0d6cf7.jpg)
Yeah John, that fraction of a T-shirt looks exceptionally "ragged"? LOL
BTW, this digging a deeper and deeper hole is just emphasizing your desperation, just give it up and stop embarrassing yourself.
JohnM
JohnM
-
The Hertz clock was of unknown accuracy, as were the dispatcher's clocks.
Gee Whiz John, this really takes the cake, two independent time pieces where each were relied upon to be extremely accurate, and both were synchronized within a minute of each other but for some desperate CT reasoning they were both exactly wrong by the exact same amount.
JohnM
-
Yeah John, that fraction of a T-shirt looks exceptionally "ragged"? LOL
"Fraction". LOL. 1/1 is a "fraction" too. Typical "Mytton" hyperbole.
But completely beside the point that Bill was trying to misrepresent the T-shirt as not being visible.
-
Gee Whiz John, this really takes the cake, two independent time pieces where each were relied upon to be extremely accurate, and both were synchronized within a minute of each other but for some desperate CT reasoning they were both exactly wrong by the exact same amount.
Gee whiz, "Mytton", you forgot to demonstrate with any evidence whatsoever that they "were synchronized within a minute of each other" or that they were "relied upon to be extremely accurate", or that anybody reasoned that "they were both exactly wrong by the exact same amount".
Triple play -- nice!
-
Gee whiz, "Mytton", you forgot to demonstrate with any evidence whatsoever that they "were synchronized within a minute of each other"
Already did!
(https://i.postimg.cc/13P79zsV/12-30-in-sync.jpg)
JohnM
-
Already did!
That's not evidence that they were "independent". Or accurate. Keep trying. But I thought you were trying to claim that the two dispatchers' timepieces were synchronized.
-
But I thought you were trying to claim that the two dispatchers' timepieces were synchronized.
After the 12:35 time call on both channels, Capt. Souter calls in advising "Do not use Industrial".
(https://i.ibb.co/tSpdhq7/12-35-police-radio.jpg)
Both radio operators, repeat "Do not use Industrial" both with the 12:36 timestamp.
(https://i.ibb.co/fdJqNHpL/12-36-police-radio.jpg)
And again at 12:45 both dispatchers with their own slight variations, broadcast a description that is very very close to Oswald
(https://i.ibb.co/fGPQxfVd/12-45-police-radio-a.jpg)
JohnM
-
That's not evidence that they were "independent". Or accurate. Keep trying. But I thought you were trying to claim that the two dispatchers' timepieces were synchronized.
Define "synchronized" in the current context.
-
"Fraction". LOL. 1/1 is a "fraction" too. Typical "Mytton" hyperbole.
Improper Fraction
A fraction p/q>=1. A fraction with p/q<1 is called a proper fraction. Therefore, the special cases 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, etc. are generally considered to be improper.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ImproperFraction.html#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20the%20special%20cases%201,generally%20considered%20to%20be%20improper.
JohnM
-
"Fraction". LOL. 1/1 is a "fraction" too. Typical "Mytton" hyperbole.
But completely beside the point that Bill was trying to misrepresent the T-shirt as not being visible.
No.
I didn't say the T-shirt wasn't visible. Why would you lie like that?
YOU simply forgot that for the Friday lineups, Oswald was wearing the outer brown shirt over the T-shirt when you tried to make the point that Oswald was in the lineups in a ragged T-shirt.
Like John Mytton said... stop digging yourself deeper. Move on already.
-
YOU simply forgot that for the Friday lineups, Oswald was wearing the outer brown shirt over the T-shirt when you tried to make the point that Oswald was in the lineups in a ragged T-shirt.
I didn't forget anything. He was still wearing the T-shirt. So your pointing out that he was also wearing the arrest shirt is irrelevant.