Oswald: ‘I work in that building’

OSWALD: “I work in that building…” from Vimeo.

(H/T Jean)

88 comments

  1. Paul Turner says:

    He told the truth at that point. Obviously there is no doubt about that. Makes one wonder if he was telling the truth at other times, too, such as him saying “I’m a patsy!!”

    • John Kirsch says:

      I have long believed that Oswald’s demeanor while in police custody is one of the biggest problems for the backers of the official story, ie, Oswald shot JFK alone and unaided.
      I say that because such people always try to portray Oswald as a “nut.”
      But in the TV footage in the police station Oswald comes across, to me, at least, as remarkably lucid and calm, even though he has obviously been roughed up and is in police custody, circumstances that would cause many others to retreat into babbling incoherence.
      His manner is not that of a “nut,” then, but of someone who genuinely believes he is the victim of a misunderstanding and who expects someone, who knows who, to come forward and clear up the entire mess.
      But if he really believed he could be released from custody, that it was all a misunderstanding, why had he taken the extraordinarily risky step of returning to his rooming house, by plane, train and automobile, practically, after supposedly shooting the president, an act he would surely have known would cause a dragnet to fall down upon him almost immediately after the shots were fired?
      Oswald is an endlessly enigmatic figure. Maybe the reason why all attempts to plumb his depths seem to lead nowhere is because he was not, in fact, the person who killed the president.

      • ed connor says:

        John, the inexplicable return to his rooming house was for the purpose of retrieving his .38 revolver, which he then used to shoot Off. Tippit.
        If he planned to shoot JFK and make a break for it, why would he neglect to bring his easily concealable revolver to work on Friday morning?
        This fact speaks clearly to his mental state on 11/22. He knew something was up, but he did not expect to be the subject of the nation’s largest manhunt that day.

        • John Kirsch says:

          When it comes to 11/22 there are really only 3 things I am reasonably certain of — President Kennedy was shot and killed; Tippit was shot and killed; and Oswald was shot and killed (in police custody no less).
          Everything else is up in the air as far as I am concerned. Which is to say I am not completely persuaded that Oswald killed Tippit.
          I have no idea what Lee Harvey Oswald’s mental state was on that date or any other.
          Did he know ¨something was up¨? I have no idea and neither does anyone else, not really.
          The apparent fact that Oswald returned to his rooming house after supposedly assassinating the president of the United States seems highly unusual and significant. After Booth shot Lincoln he got on a horse and rode out of DC.
          In other words, he not only fled the immediate scene of the crime, he fled the city where the crime scene was located.
          Oswald could easily have walked from the depository, on the west side of downtown Dallas to the bus station and caught the first bus out of town. I would be much more willing to believe he was the killer if he had done that.
          But he did not, according to what we have been told. Instead we are told he did everything but take a helicopter back to his rooming house, apparently to get his gun.
          Why? One plausible reason, provided by Morley, was to get his gun, because he knew he had been set up and feared that the conspirators would try to kill him.
          But as you say he could have taken his gun with him that morning. Either he really was totally duped by the conspirators (if there were any) or he did a really bad job of planning the assassination.
          I have no idea which possibility is true.

        • Fearfaxer says:

          Actually, regarding the revolver, I wonder why Oswald didn’t just take that to work with him (very easily concealed) and try to shoot JFK on the street corner. Makes much more sense than doing it with that piece of junk rifle on the top floor of a building, with a huge maze of heavy book cartons providing numerous obstacles to a quick escape down the stairway located at the opposite corner of a very long room. He’d have stood a much better chance of escaping by running away as fast as he could after pumping a few shots into the President. I’m not saying it would have been a good change, but a better one than being holed up in that corner of the TSBD.

  2. Russ Tarby says:

    we can safely assume that Oswald’s brief comments while in custody outline what would have been his strongest defense if he had lived to face trial. those who had been manipulating him — perhaps for years but definitely that summer in New Orleans — now knew that he was painting himself as a patsy, which probably hurried Jack Ruby into action Nov. 24.
    If he hadn’t been silenced, Oswald might have even named names of his various handlers thus exposing various intelligence operations and possibly pointing in the direction of the conspirators who killed Kennedy.

  3. Bogman says:

    If Oswald was being manipulated by the CIA, I don’t believe he knew who was pulling the strings. Otherwise, can you imagine the conspirators’ dread of him just blurting out those 3 little letters in front of a global TV audience?

    I agree that his words and demeanor are so strange – beyond anything close to a natural human reaction I can imagine. His general attitude is one of irritation – why am I here and why are you asking me these questions? But that also seems like a front – that isn’t necessarily covering complete guilt, but some kind of guilty knowledge he does not want to discuss. If he was completely innocent, seems like his tone would be much more incredulous, angry and sincerely outraged.

    But he doesn’t seem ‘crazy’ at all. There’s no fantastic, delusional outbursts. There’s no ranting and raving. There’s no seething hatred.

    They called him the Ozzy the Rabbit I believe in the Marines. It’s fitting, because he is the pre-eminent figure in the case that leads you down the proverbial rabbit hole.

  4. eddy says:

    Oswald’s visible behaviour in custody was strongly indicative of a ‘lone nut’. If he was calm because of a belief he would be rescued, then that was naïve in a way incompatible with his obvious intelligence. It is even more laughable to suggest he wasn’t aware of the gravity of the situation.
    His demeanor is unexplainable.

    • John Kirsch says:

      Not to be argumentative, but, how, specifically, was Oswald’s behavior in custody “strongly indicative of a ‘lone nut”’? How do you define “lone nut”?
      You say his demeanor is “unexplainable.” Given the remarkable presence of mind he showed in dire circumstances, one explanation is that he was innocent of the charge of killing JFK.
      But if there was a conspiracy, and I don’t think that possibility can be ruled out, then I cannot conceive of any good reason for the conspirators to have wanted Oswald to fall into custody.
      Even if they had done their best to hide the details of the conspiracy from Oswald, and even if the Dallas police were as pliable as many say they were, the conspirators could not have been 100 percent confident that Oswald might blurt out some important detail to his interrogators.
      He was not a stupid person, after all. He might well have learned some details on his own.
      The only post-assassination scenario that makes sense to me would have been for Oswald to be killed as soon as possible after the shooting.

  5. Vanessa says:

    Thanks for the clip Jean.

    Could you now share the clip of Chief Curry stating to reporters that Officer Baker encountered Oswald as he went into the building?

    Curry says nothing about the 2nd floor or the 2nd floor lunch room at all.

  6. GM says:

    @Vanessa. At around 5:30 minutes Jesse Curry said Oswald was observed in the building after the shooting. Curry said the manager told the officers that Oswald was an employee, so it is consistent with the reported meeting with Baker. Talks about this encounter of Oswald’s with a police man again at around 6:40 minutes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjgH8o4Adw

    Incidentally, Curry said that there was someone else who worked in the TSBD who was in the ‘subversive files’ at around 4:30, and that they were talking to him as well. Anyone know who that was, was this a mistake/false etc? He gets asked about this at around 6:25, and says the individual (not Oswald) was associated with left wing groups.

    Jesse Curry is asked at 12:15 if he thinks Oswald is mentally right, he relied that he thinks he is mentally sound/right, and is not off his ‘rocker.’ It is well worth watching.

    • Avinash says:

      That was Joe Molina a colleague of Oswald.His house was raided by Dallas Police on the night of the assassination looking for subversive literature.

    • Vanessa says:

      Thanks GM that is exactly the video I was hoping Jean might post.

      Actually the meeting between Oswald and Baker described by Curry in this video is not consistent with the 2nd floor encounter ascribed to by the WCR.

      At 6.42 Curry is asked about the policeman (Officer Baker) who saw Oswald in the building after the shots were fired.

      Curry responds “I imagine that he (Baker) was checking everyone as he went into the building”.

      We know from Baker’s WC testimony and the Weigman film that Baker entered the building approximately 30 seconds after the shooting.

      If Baker encountered Oswald as he “went into the building” 30 seconds after the shooting then Oswald could not have shot the President.

      Curry doesn’t mention the 2nd floor or the 2nd floor lunchroom as the scene of the meeting. He says it occurred as Baker ‘went into the building’.

      That puts Oswald somewhere close to the entrance of the building either just outside or just inside it.

      The quickest the WC could get Oswald from the 6th to the 2nd floor was 90 seconds.

      The ‘subversive’ referred to is Joe Molina. Molina was associated with a veteran’s group that was considered subversive but later cleared by the WCR of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

      The DPD raided Joe Molina’s home at 2.00am on Saturday and Molina later claimed the DPD threatened him to admit that he was involved in the assassination with Oswald or else things would go badly for him.

      • Vanessa says:

        Jean

        Would you like to explain why you consider Oswald to be telling the truth in this snippet but not in any of his other statements that day?

        Later on in this series at 32.20 Oswald states the he ’emphatically denies these charges’. And that he did not ‘commit violence against anyone’.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Vanessa, you are unintentionally misstating what Curry said. He didn’t say that Baker met Oswald as he went into the building.

          Look at the video again. A reporter asked if the policeman stopped Oswald because he looked suspicious. Answering that question, Curry replied, “I imagine he was checking everyone as he went into the building.” He was only suggesting that Baker didn’t have to think Oswald looked suspicious in order to stop him. And he wasn’t even sure that Baker was checking everyone — he said “I imagine” that’s what happened.

          • Vanessa says:

            No Jean, as you know, I’m not ‘unintentionally misstating’ anything Curry said.

            I’m showing Curry’s intentional statement on where Baker met Oswald does not mention the 2nd floor or the 2nd floor lunchroom.

            Curry’s statement only mentions Baker meeting Oswald as he ‘went into’ the building.

            That places the meeting at or near the TSBD entrance. I don’t see how you can dispute that.

            The WCR determined that the only way that Oswald could be the assassin is if he made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in 90 seconds to meet Baker.

            Curry doesn’t mention the 2nd floor as being the site of the encounter at all in any of his interviews that day.

            And Baker doesn’t mention it in his first day affidavit.

            Baker does mention an encounter on the 3rd or 4th floor with another man who does not match Oswald’s description. Baker does not ID Oswald at the DPD the day of the assassination even though he confirms in his WC testimony that he saw him at DPP HQ.

            How do you account for this silence on the 2nd floor encounter Jean? In fact, Baker does not describe it fully until 4 months later in his WC testimony (which completely contradicts his 1st day affidavit).

            The most reasonable conclusion is that neither Curry nor Baker mention the 2nd floor because the encounter didn’t happen on the 2nd floor.

            Baker did meet Oswald but it happened near the entrance of the TSBD and the incident got ‘moved’ to the 2nd floor so that Oswald could be the assassin instead of some bystander at the front door.

            But I digress, aren’t you going to tell us why Oswald’s comment about working in that building is the one occasion where you believe he is telling the truth?

          • Vanessa says:

            No, Jean, as you know, I’m not ‘unintentionally misstating’ anything Curry said.

            Curry’s statement only mentions Baker meeting Oswald as he ‘went into’ the building.

            Curry doesn’t mention the 2nd floor as being the site of the encounter at all in any of his interviews that day.

            And Baker doesn’t mention it in his first day affidavit.

            Baker does mention an encounter on the 3rd or 4th floor with another man who does not match Oswald’s description. Baker does not ID Oswald at the DPD the day of the assassination even though he confirms in his WC testimony that he saw him at DPP HQ.

            How do you account for this silence on the 2nd floor encounter Jean? In fact, Baker does not describe it fully until 4 months later in his WC testimony (which completely contradicts his 1st day affidavit).

            The most reasonable conclusion is that neither Curry nor Baker mention the 2nd floor because the encounter didn’t happen on the 2nd floor.

            Baker did meet Oswald but it happened near the entrance of the TSBD and the incident got ‘moved’ to the 2nd floor so that Oswald could be the assassin instead of some bystander at the front door.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Vanessa: “No Jean, as you know, I’m not ‘unintentionally misstating’ anything Curry said.”

            So you know better than I do what I “know”? Really, Vanessa?

            Please point out where Curry said that Baker encountered Oswald as he went into the building. Please quote it word for word. Here’s a transcript of that 11/23 interview you could refer to. The passage we’re talking about starts on this page:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=784&tab=page

            What I “know” is that you can’t quote Curry saying that Baker met Oswald as he entered the building. But please give it a try and if I’m wrong I’ll apologize.

            Baker didn’t mention the 2nd floor in his initial affidavit but Truly did, in a handwritten affidavit written 11/23/63. It can be dated because he speaks of events happening “yesterday” on the 1st page:

            http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0120-001.gif

            http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0120-002.gif

            That’s from the DPD online records, Box 1, Folder 5, item 16:

            http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box1.htm

            Curry wasn’t involved in questioning Oswald or, so far as I know, any of the witnesses. He may not have known on 11/23 exactly where the encounter took place or maybe he just didn’t mention it.

            How many people are prayer man advocates willing to throw under the bus as liars who helped frame an innocent man for the President’s murder? There’s Baker, Truly, Reid, the people on the steps near PM who denied they saw Oswald at the time of the shooting…. and that’s just for starters.

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            We are talking about the same sentence by Curry “I imagine that he (Baker) was checking everyone as he went into the building”.

            If Curry was speaking about a non-specific search of the building wouldn’t he have said “I imagine that he was checking everyone as he searched the building”?

            But he doesn’t. He talks about what happened as Baker ‘went into’ the building.

            In addition, Baker doesn’t mention the 2nd floor at all until 4 months later.

            Jean, if Baker saw Oswald on the 2nd floor or the 3/4th floor why doesn’t he identify him by name in his 1st day affidavit?

            Baker was NEVER formally shown Oswald in a line up over 2 days. Yet he was the key witness for the prosecution.

            The discrepancies in Baker’s 1st day affidavit and his WC testimony require an explanation.

            How do you explain them?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Vanessa: “We are talking about the same sentence by Curry “I imagine that he (Baker) was checking everyone as he went into the building’”.

            Yes, and it doesn’t say that Baker encountered Oswald as he went into the building.

            “I imagine…” means that Curry is speculating about why Baker stopped Oswald if he wasn’t suspicious of him. Don’t assume Curry had all the details on 11/23, because he obviously did not. He was speculating about WHY Oswald was stopped, not WHERE.

            “The discrepancies in Baker’s 1st day affidavit and his WC testimony require an explanation.”

            No, they don’t. In any record this huge(over 5 million pages)there are inevitably going to be a ton of discrepancies because every person involved was fallible — witnesses, investigators, and everyone else.

            You should first look for some innocent explanation for a discrepancy. (E.g., Baker may’ve signed his name after he saw Oswald, or he may’ve been nervous, or at that point didn’t know Oswald’s name, or for some other reason.) The correct answer is unknown and probably always will be.

            Some CTs seem to assume that whatever discrepancy they’re focused on is a clue, but that’s not so. Real clues should lead to a plausible narrative that explains what happened. Random discrepancies don’t do that. They instead lead to a multitude of different theories depending on which anomalies each writer focuses on, and they typically require all-powerful plotters who control everything.

            It’s up to the person pointing out the discrepancy to come up with a sensible narrative that explains how it fits with the rest of the evidence. There is so much evidence against Oswald including his own actions that no one has ever been able to explain in detail how he even *could* have been framed. If there were any credible frame-up scenario, surely some conspiracy theorist would have presented it in the last 50+ years.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Me: “(E.g., Baker may’ve signed his name after he saw Oswald, ……”

            Sorry, I meant to say “before he saw Oswald, not after.

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            There might be over 5 million pages of ‘evidence’ in the WCR but not all of it is crucial in proving Oswald’s guilt or innocence. The encounter with Baker is absolutely crucial in determining whether Oswald shot the President. If the meeting happened at the TSBD doorway then Oswald could not have been the shooter.

            Baker’s 1st day affidavit describes an encounter on the 3rd or 4th floor of the building with a man in a tan jacket who does not match Oswald’s appearance.

            Of course, I have looked for a benign reason for Baker not to have identified Oswald in his affidavit. But Baker confirms in his WC testimony that he saw Oswald at DPD HQ while he was writing his affidavit.

            Oswald was rolled out for line ups to be identified by other witnesses but Officer Baker was not included in any of these.

            So we have the key witness at DPD HQ who sees Oswald brought in for the Tippit murder as he is writing his affidavit.

            And Baker does not think to say “Hey, that Oswald guy is the same man I saw in the 2nd floor lunchroom – better note that in my affidavit. Maybe he shot the President too” because he was ‘nervous’. I think that is stretching credibility to breaking point.

            A better explanation as to why Baker was not shown Oswald in any line ups and why he does not identify the Tippit murder suspect as the man he saw in the TSBD in his affidavit is because Oswald was not the man Baker encountered on the 3rd/4th floor.

  7. MDG says:

    I dont think we know with any certainty what Oswald said in custody.

    We know things didnt happen as we were told.

    It was hard to believe in 63 it was a lone nut.

    We again have this feeling of disbelief as in 63 at this horror of a Trump Presidency that confronts us.

    • RonnieWayne says:

      We have what Oswald said on film, period. WHY was his interrogation not recorded or transcribed? The capability was there at the time. Traditional DPD policy?
      Beyond that is the notes of Capitan Fritz, reportedly copied from the FBI agent present. Then there is Chief Curry’s book with the picture of Roger Craig in Fritz’s office while all others denied his presence. His story ignored by the Warren Omission, discredited by apologists.
      Let’s not forget the questioning by US Postal Inspector Holmes who Did keep notes, unlike the SS & DPD. Why the hell was a postal inspector questioning a potential assassin of the President in the first place?
      Is not all of this a bit absurd in the first place?

      • Vanessa says:

        Good point Ronnie.

        A map of the DPD shows that the police recording room was feet away from Oswald’s actual interrogation room.

        The DPD’s response as to why they didn’t record Oswald?

        The machines were too heavy to move.

        No word on why they didn’t interview Oswald in the actual official DPD recording room.

        • Paulf says:

          The logical explanation for why Oswald was not recorded is because his interrogators were afraid that anything or something he said would be made public. There is no other rational explanation.

          If this was an open-and-shut case against a certainly guilty party of no consequence, the investigation almost certainly would have been conducted by the books. But it wasn’t, in every conceivable way.

          That parallels the lack of interest in recording anything Jack Rudy could say as well. But of course that was all due to a long series of mistakes and unfortunate occurrences, or so we are supposed to believe.

          • Paulf says:

            And sadly, by sheer coincidence, these guys who had important information just happened to die before they could disclose. I hate it when that happens.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Instead of speculating and letting suspicion fill in the blanks, why not research “recording room”?

            The late head of the Dallas JFK Museum Gary Mack once wrote, “I looked into this some time ago, as have several other researchers. The recording room was where investigators and prisoners filled out the standard forms and the records room was where those records and others were kept.”

            https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/alt.assassination.jfk/%22recording$20room%22/alt.assassination.jfk/A5qY_cqvm34

            Apparently in 1963 statements made under interrogation were inadmissible unless there was a signed confession. I believe D.A. Wade once said as much, but I can’t find that now.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        I believe Holmes was summoned because of the rental and use by Oswald of the PO Box to which the rifle and pistol were supposedly delivered.

  8. Bart Kamp says:

    Too bad you are only showing a part of this particular clip.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAopnKSYxRo

    The question being asked just before your clip starts is much more telling:
    Q: Did you kill the President?
    A: No Sir, I didn’t. People keep asking me that.

    Then there is way too much weight placed on the bit you are highlighting, and it is perfectly understandable. Do you work in that building, yes. Were you there when it happened, well yeah naturally while I work in that building…..so a person is arrested who works inside the building where supposedly shots were fired from. If a statement like that is supposed to crucify Oswald then anyone can be arrested and declared guilty as such.
    Frazier was being shown a statement that made him look like a co-accomplice which he refused to sign, so Fritz would raise his hand only for them to be interrupted.

  9. John Kirsch says:

    A possibility I had not considered before: that there was a hidden microphone in the Dallas police dept. office where the Oswald interrogations took place, courtesy of Jack White, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/4591-will-fritz/

    A revealing quote taken off the National Archives site, “The number of people in the interrogation room and the tumultuous atmosphere throughout the third floor made it difficult for the interrogators to gain Oswald’s confidence and to encourage him to be truthful. As Chief Curry has recognized in his testimony, “we were violating every principle of interrogation … it was just against all principles of good interrogation practice.” 40
    https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-5.html

  10. Maroon says:

    The Presidential limo slowing to a crawl in front of the Book Depository…even after multiple deafening rifle shots.

    The slow walk with Oswald in the Police garage. One officer almost pushing Oswald into Rubys gun.

  11. Connally says:

    Working in the building. Indeed he did.

    Two things.

    The Billy Loveland crap. If LHO had been on the steps at the time of the shooting. That would be among the first things he would have pointed to with Wil Fritz.

    Two the whole scenario.
    A guy decides to shoot the president from his workplace window during his lunch break.
    Using a weapon with a paper trail leading to himself. Take a moment on that one.

    Makes a lame attempt at stashing it. Pauses for a Coke. Then takes a course of travel those trained in intelligence to do what. Go back to his known rooming house, for a pistol and jacket any school yard planning would have avoided.

    LHO figured he was a pasty somewhere around the coke machine I feel. The theater was a destination more than some duck in spot. Otherwise he would have paid the ticket. LHO was afraid of both friend. S
    orry I digressed However it’s NewYears a great 2017 to all.

    • Monday morning quarterbacking is great for conspiracy advocates, isn’t it?

      But one thing that the arrival of Monday morning doesn’t do is *erase* that large pile of evidence (and *Lee Oswald’s very own actions*) that indicate LHO’s guilt in two 11/22/63 murders.

      Conspiracy theorists can pretend that all of that evidence pointing directly at Oswald is fake or tainted. But can they *prove* it? Has anyone ever come close to proving that just *one piece* of the evidence is fraudulent? I think not. And suspicion of fakery is a far cry from something called “proof”.

      http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html

      • Paulf says:

        If, by “all that evidence,” you mean “absolutely nothing concrete, and certainly nothing that would hold up in court,” then I wholeheartedly agree.

      • Paul Turner says:

        David, Oswald was never proven guilty in a court of law, the way it should have been done. Why? LBJ cut off Congressional investigations into the assassination.Why? The Warren Commission’s failure to prove their single-bullet theory meant that Oswald couldn’t have fired all of the shots. Right?

        • So, Paul, are you saying that Oswald’s dead corpse should have been propped up in a courtroom in Dallas and his trial should have proceeded even after Ruby shot him dead?

          *Of course* Oswald was not “proven guilty in a court of law”. But that worn-out excuse has always been nothing but a cop-out used by conspiracy advocates (IMO).

          Whether Oswald went to trial or not, the EVIDENCE still exists. And that evidence does not add up to an *innocent* Lee Harvey Oswald. Not even close….

          http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

          • Paul Turner says:

            The evidence of LHO being the lone shooter is what is “used”, David. And rather unsuccessfully, I’d add.

      • Antonio D'Antonio says:

        How about all the evidence that didn’t point directly to Oswald which was ignored by the WC and not even included in their report?
        There’s a difference between actually looking into evidence that didn’t point directly to Oswald and proving that it wasn’t relevant and just ignoring it all together because it didn’t point to Oswald.

      • Dan Clark says:

        You are kidding right? Where’s your mountain of evidence against LHO? Where? Palm print in the weapon wasn’t “found” until after agents went to the funeral home with a rifle. Who placed LHO on the 6th floor? No-one. By the WC apologists standards circumstantial evidence is allowed if it points to LHO but not if it points to a frame-up. There’s no eyewitness who saw LHO either with a rifle or in the 6th floor so that argument is toast considering actual eyewitness accounts if his being on the first and second floors both before AND after the shooting.

        You want real evidence of the crime? Watch the Nix film. The brakes are applied before the head shot and remain applied until after that shot. Also you see two flashes of light from behind the fence, one seems to coincide with the head shot the other seems to coincide with what is unmistakably a shot that missed the car and strikes the pavement behind it and you see the strike on the pavement, the puff of smoke AND a nearby family jump back at the time of that strike. You need more? How about autopsy photo’s going missing? How about the existing photo’s (real or doctored) not matching the x-rays? How about the FBI picking up a bullet from the grass? How about the crack in the windshield , the dent in the window frame, the missing brain, roscoe white’s missing diary, Beverly Oliver’s missing film, the hit list of dozens of witnesses, it goes on and on and on.

        I’m sorry if I come across like a prick but I’ve had it past the top of my head with the secrecy behind this assassination and the 2 that followed.

        Free the files. Retrieve the missing photo’s, films, diaries etc and/or prosecute those who destroyed evidence. It’s well past time we get acknowledgment of what really transpired. Also well past time to issue apologies to Jim Garrison’s family and above all the families of John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luthet King.

      • connally says:

        Thank you David. I appreciate a lot of the things you put up on your channel.

        This a first for us. Frankly I expected something more from you in your post than the standard LN montra. A closer look at the matter which is frightening to WR supporters
        Is the fact much this so cold hard facts presented. loses its luster open any closer look.

        I think you are aware of that David.
        Example. The matter of TAKING the body and getting out of Dallas of the safety
        of the entire party.

        The reality is that back at Love Field. Two aircraft sat filled on an open tarmac. No a/c in stuffy planes fully vulnerable. for TWO hrs. that LBJ could wait on a Texas judge to swear him in. Getting the he;; out for safety loses it luster when view in
        it total contex.

      • Jordan says:

        Yes, and a large pile it is…Of what I won’t say.

  12. Connally says:

    LHO

    One thing that gets lost on the LHO discussion.
    It the time of the assassination. a 24yo kid.

    His life leading up to that had been an adventure. From a latch key kid. Before they were even calling it that. To a sense of self worth fashioned on TV show depicting a patriotic double agent for the FBI working as a communist Herbert Philbrick.

    He serves as a dangle in Moscow. Thought he was filling his propaganda role in the summer of 1963
    As a pro Castro communist LHO saw his role there, as dangel as well. While working with Guy Banister.
    The DRE contacts were a part of that.

    All of this to fashion an off the shelf pasty.

  13. John Kirsch says:

    This discussion about Oswald is interesting. He is a very enigmatic figure who seemed to play a central role in 11/22.
    I say “seemed to” because the actual cases against him in the killings of JFK and Tippit are so weak.
    No one actually saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. (WC defenders, please do not trot out poor old Howard Brennan.)
    Oswald never confessed. And even the WC came up short in trying to ascribe a motive for Oswald to have killed JFK, whom Oswald had actually praised.
    The Tippit killing is even more opaque, with the multiple witnesses giving multiple accounts of what may or may not have happened, if they were even there.

  14. John Kirsch says:

    It seems important to point out some information about the Texas School Book Depository itself.
    From the Wikipedia article on D.H. Byrd,
    “At a public auction on July 4, 1939 Byrd purchased the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, from where Lee Harvey Oswald supposedly shot John F. Kennedy in 1963.[2][3] Byrd had the alleged window removed and mounted on the wall of his home.[1]”
    “Peter Dale Scott estimates that D.H. Byrd teamed up with James Ling to make about $50M by buying 132,000 shares of Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) in November 1963 just before the JFK assassination. These shot up in value after the once LBJ came to power; whereas JFK had announced a troop withdrawal of the Vietnam war, the first contract the Pentagon awarded was for a fighter jet to LTV.[4]”
    Also, “In September 1941 he formed the Civil Air Patrol with Gill Robb Wilson.[1]” https://wikispooks.com/wiki/David_Harold_Byrd
    From the Wikipedia article on David Ferrie, “… photos emerged establishing that Ferrie had been in the same Civil Air Patrol unit as Oswald in the 1950s” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ferrie

  15. Avinash says:

    The prayer Man footage clearly places Oswald on the front steps during the shooting.

    • Bart Kamp says:

      Not just the footage.
      “Out with Bill Shelley, in front” has been given a much more concise meaning thanks to Ray Mitcham. Shelley left the steps with Lovelady straight after the shots were fired and they made their way West towards the rail road yard.
      So Oswald could have only been with him before S&L left the steps.
      Which makes him Prayer Man.

      Or after Shelley came back which destroys Oswald leaving the TSBD in 3 minutes. But there is an issue with that “after”. Shelley was not noticed outside on the steps later on, nor did he mention this anywhere.

      Bookhout’s solo report refers to Oswald and Shelley talking after the shooting, and is a separate instance.

      Oswald stood outside next to Shelley.
      Shelley left and after coming back through a side entrance into the TSBD spoke with Oswald about no work being done that afternoon.
      Then left his details at the front door and did what Roger Craig ended up spotting.
      It’s all coming together rather nicely.

      HNY!!!!

      “Out with Bill Shelley, in front” is the answer to “Where were you when the limo passed by or when The President got shot?”

      • BART KAMP SAID:

        “Out with Bill Shelley, in front” is the answer to “Where were you when the limo passed by or when The President got shot?”

        DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

        You’re just making stuff up to suit your Anybody-But-Oswald requirements.

        So, per many CTers, Oswald was supposedly “out with Shelley” at 12:30 and yet LHO says NOT A SINGLE WORD about being “out with Shelley” when he has the chance to do so on live TV on multiple occasions on both Nov. 22 AND Nov. 23. Incredible, isn’t it?

        Oswald must have been framing himself. He has the perfect chance to clear himself on TV and he doesn’t utter a word regarding his ironclad “Out With Shelley” alibi. (And people call LNers “gullible”. Geesh.)

        More….
        http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1052.html

        • Ray Mitcham says:

          “Strange that Oswald knew that Jarman and Norman passed by the lunchroom after 12.20. If he was on the 6th floor how did he know they went via that route from the front of the building?

          How did he know Bill Shelley was out front of the TSBD? When Oswald left via the front entrance Shelley was either in the railyard or back inside the building. He did not go back to the front. Why not try and use one of the employees still out front for his alibi?”

          Posted by Colin Crow on another site.

          Any answers, DVP?

          • A much better question is: Why didn’t Oswald utilize his perfect “Out With Shelley” alibi when he faced the reporters at City Hall on both 11/22 and 11/23 and during his televised midnight press conference?

            Any idea, Ray?

          • RonnieWayne says:

            Did any of the reporters ask him “where were you when the President was shot” David? I’ve never read anything about that. Give us a link or a book and page number please.

          • Ronnie,

            LEE HARVEY OSWALD — “I work in that building.”

            REPORTER — “Were you in the building at the time?”

            LEE HARVEY OSWALD — “Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.”

            Now, are you going to say that Lee didn’t know what the reporter meant by “at the time”?

    • Clearly?? Holy overstatement!

  16. David S says:

    The mere fact that LHO got a job at the eventual “Sniper’s Nest” a mere 1 month before the actual killing, giving himself a legitimate reason for being there, is itself either the most remarkable of coincidences or shows a guiding hand.

    Yes, I’ve read the “explanations” of how Ruth Paine helped LHO get the job. But that doesn’t change the “remarkable” nature of the coincidence:

    What would we say if:

    * Sirhan Sirhan just happened to get a job as a waiter at the Ambassador Hotel 30 days before the RFK murder?

    * Mark David Chapman just happened to get a job as a doorman at the Dakota Hotel 30 days before the John Lennon murder?

    * John Hinkley just happened to get a job as a doorman at the Washington Hilton Hotel 30 days before Reagan was shot?

    * John Wilkes Boothe just happened to join an acting troop at Ford’s Theater 30 days before Lincoln was murdered?

    Most people would not accept these as merely “remarkable coincidences,” but rather some form of inside planning.

    • Paul May says:

      Are you unaware that history is littered with coincidences? Those coincidences you claim in the JFK event are small by comparison. In fact, conspiracy advocates simply do not believe coincidences occur at all, rather they choose to believe history is indeed only about evil people engaging in nefarious activities. Google historical coincidences. It might surprise you.

      • Paulf says:

        History is littered with events that aren’t coincidences as well.

      • ed connor says:

        “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. You only live twice:once when you are born, and once when you look death in the face.”
        – Ian Fleming.
        In the fall of 1963 there were Tampa, Chicago and Dallas.
        Looks like enemy action to me.

      • Paul Turner says:

        I’d say there were some coincidences regarding other shooters in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Read the connection n between D.H. Byrd,LBJ, and Mac Wallace, for instance. Byrd, the longtime owner of the TSBD. Johnson, the Veep who hated JFK, and wanted very badly to be President. Wallace, LBJ’s “hitman”, who had killed numerous people who had info to ruin LBJ’s political career. Byrd and LBJ knew each other well. Wallace’s fingerprint was on a box near the “sniper’s nest”.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        Tell you what, Paul (or Photon, whatever you call yourself these days), do the Google search for us, and YOU surprise US with the fruits of your labors. Of course, you won’t do this, you never back up your claims with anything, and this one is particularly gaseous.

      • Ray Mitcham says:

        Of course it’s a coincidence, Paul. It always is when it puts the CIA in a bad light. LOL

  17. John Kirsch says:

    Assume, for the sake of argument, that the WC was correct and Oswald fired the fatal rounds with his rifle with the poorly installed scope from the sniper’s nest.
    If the official story and photos are to be believed, Oswald tried to conceal himself with boxes he (presumably) piled around him to form the nest.
    But how could he have been sure that one or more of his fellow employees would not stumble onto the 6th floor and discover Oswald in the act of killing the president?
    Did he believe his barrier of boxes would protect him in such a situation?
    Oswald, if the official story is, again to be believed, had shown himself to possess the ability to plan ahead, as shown by his successful defection to the Soviet Union and then on his return, a return that, inexplicably, did not cause the federal government, at the height of the Cold War to seek to put him in prison.
    But the official story asks us to believe that Oswald was willing to take the colossal risk of being discovered in the act of assassinating the president of the United States.
    This is one of many reasons why I find the official story to be implausible.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Many critics of the Warren Report on JFK forums have evidently never read the Warren Report.

      The large boxes forming the sniper’s nest were moved there by workers replacing flooring on the opposite side of the building. The smaller box used as a rifle rest was not. It came from a different area and had Oswald’s left hand print on one side, his right hand print on the other.

      https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9b/Pict_essay_thomasbugfritz_4_snipersnest_lrg.jpg

      Around noon, Bonnie Williams was at the window to the right of the SN but didn’t see anyone because the boxes hid that area. (He later went down to the 5th floor to watch the motorcade.)

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce484.jpg

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/williams.htm

      Oswald wasn’t prosecuted after returning from the USSR because it wasn’t illegal to live there and the only evidence that he intended to give the Russians any information was his own threat to do so, which he retracted when he applied to return to the U.S. The Justice Department told the HSCA there was no evidence to convict him with.

      It’s fine to criticize the Warren Report, but would you guys at least read it first?

      • John Kirsch says:

        Fair points but at least 1 of my questions still stands.
        Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the WC was correct in saying that Oswald fired at the motorcade from the so-called sniper’s nest, and that the shots Oswald fired killed JFK, wouldn’t Oswald have been taking an enormous risk, boxes or no boxes, with the chance that someone, a fellow employee, maybe, might have happened on to the floor where Oswald was and discovered him in the act of assassinating the president?
        Even if Oswald had been hidden by the boxes, wouldn’t the sound of the gunfire have given him away?
        Oswald, again, for the sake of argument, might have gambled that the other employees would be busy watching the motorcade, but how could he have been sure of that? I don’t see how he could have.
        Boxes or no boxes, I think the theory (and I think that’s what it is, a theory) that Oswald fired the shots from the location in question, needs to take better account of the enormous risk of discovery Oswald would have taken by taking such an action.

      • John Kirsch says:

        Following on my previous comment, if you identify someone as the assassin, Oswald or anyone else, you naturally raise the question of motive — why would any person take the enormous step of assassinating the president of the United States?
        For the sake of argument, stipulate that the WC was correct in identifying Oswald as JFK’s assassin. What did the WC have to say about Oswald’s motive or motives?
        Nothing very clear, it turned out.
        One possible motive was “His urge to try to find a place in history and despair at times over failures in his various undertakings;”
        As http://22november1963.org.uk/why-did-lee-harvey-oswald-kill-president-kennedy says, this appears to be the motive the WC gave the most weight to.
        Okay. But if Oswald killed JFK to make himself into a historic figure, why didn’t Oswald claim responsibility for the murder when the eyes of the world were almost literally on him at the police station?
        As “22november1963” states, the notion that Oswald killed JFK to get his name in the history books is difficult to back up on a factual basis, “There is no evidence to support such a notion. Oswald himself never expressed a “desire to get his name in history and all”. Nor did he ever boast of killing Kennedy. On the contrary, over the two days between his arrest and his murder by Jack Ruby, Oswald consistently denied any involvement in the assassination, famously claiming that “I’m just a patsy” (WCHE, vol.20, p.366; for more examples of Oswald’s repeated proclamations of innocence, see Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact: the Warren Commission, the Authorities, and the Report, Vintage, 1992, pp.246–9).

  18. connally says:

    David.
    You need to sharpen up your game a bit yourself. In 2017 Old and worn out is the cornerstone of the view of the WC and its report for the last several decades.
    Prop LHO up in a courtroom. Good stuff. Actually attempting to prop up this mountain of
    non-sense that is the WC and it’s report is more accurate.

    David let me ask. Do you feel the WC was formed with a task and or agenda ?
    And yes this is indeed a baited question. Your thoughts and views if any ?

    • That’s funny, connally. You seem to think that the evidence in a murder case can somehow become “old and worn out”. How so? The evidence is still going to be the evidence in 2018, 2039, and 2525. It’s not going anywhere. And it all points to Oswald, so why kid yourself?

      You must think all (or most) of that evidence is fraudulent in some manner, right? Well, I don’t agree with that line of thinking. When coupled with Oswald’s own actions on 11/21 and 11/22, any CTer has an uphill battle in trying to prove any of that evidence pointing to LHO is tainted.

      IOW, how do you get a truly *innocent patsy* to act so much like a guilty person on the day those crimes were committed by *somebody else*? Good luck answering that one in a reasonable and believable fashion.

      • RonnieWayne says:

        CIA, Phillips, Joannides, Morales, Banister…? FREETHEFILES They might tell us a little more, and they are OUR files at this point in time, no more continuing national security bullshit, all were supposed to have been previously released but even with Jeff and Mr. Lesear’s suit have not been. The CIA still stonewalls. Echo’s of Angleton, “I’d rather wait them out”, regarding the Warren omission.

      • Antonio D'Antonio says:

        Well, that clinches it for me.
        I have read enough of Mr. Von Pein’s responses to convince me that Oswald did it all by his lonesome.
        There’s nothing quite like cliched comments and responses to change someone’s mind.

      • connally says:

        UpHill Battle.

        Appears clear that the majority of Americans and those of other countries who feels the WC and it’s Report is a WhiteWash.

        Did LHO have a relationship with an anti Cuban group In New Orleans involved in propaganda efforts in the summer of 1963

        The Point. CIA knew full well who LHO was. What Senator was it that said
        “This Young man has the fingerprints of intelligence all over him.

        Just a quick overview of what LHO was up to in those days.

        Clearly the uphill battle is the long old putrid efforts to prop this crap up.
        Example. The Arlen Specter bullet path is too laughable to continue supporting.
        So they get Dale meyer to straighten it all out.
        With computer animation that reveals an overlooked need to adjust where connally’s seat was actually located.
        Of course complementing Gerald Ford’s need to
        Also officially move the location of the back wound to make it
        “More conform to the STB’

        Too many outright right lies related to both the witnesses and the evidence

        The WR . Real rock of ages stuff there Mr Von Pein.

  19. connally says:

    Mr Von Pein.

    Interesting you choose to be something an antagonist on Jefferson’s site.
    as lame as effort that it has been.
    LMAO. You will need to sharpen your game a bit.
    Lotts has came out thanks to the ARRB and other Lawsuits which makes clear the WR is pretty much
    an Insult to the common sense perceptions of anyone who views it in modern day light.

    Please do not take this personal. Although we different views on the matter. I do appreciate and respect your time and efforts on the matter.

    I believe we are both in the Cincy area. I would love to meet and speak with you.

    • Can I get your real name, “connally”? I’d like to use your actual name when I quote you on my website. Thanks.

      • RonnieWayne says:

        I was a bit surprised tonight watching the 2014 edition of Captain America (the one with Robert Redford as the bad guy). They mentioned Operation Paperclip. Is there anything about it on your website? You do know it was a Dulles project I’d guess, that he was a traitor helping the Nazis sitting on info about the Holocaust and defying Presidents Roosevelt then Truman? And that some are convinced he orchestrated the JFK Assassination after being fired by him for his “bosses” for this and other reasons?

      • connally says:

        Negative would be your answer.

        That is quite a website indeed. I just stopped in. Has an arcade feel.
        What. Do you want to mock me on your site? lol

  20. connally says:

    The Midnight Press Conference.

    Would anyone agree that it was Jack Ruby standing in the back of the room clearly heard correcting a reporter as to the proper description of the DRE and shouting at LHO “Who Said What’ In a threatening way. When Oswald responded to a reporter that he had been ask about shooting the president earlier ?

    Your thoughts ?

    • Ruby didn’t correct anybody about the “DRE”. It was the FPCC. And OTHERS in the room did the same thing at the same time. So Ruby wasn’t alone in that “correction” as most CTers seem to want to believe.

      And it certainly was not Jack Ruby who said “Nobody said what?” to Oswald. That voice was right next to the microphone practically, so it couldn’t have been Ruby. (Ruby was too far back in the room–standing on a table–to have been heard that clearly on the air. And the voice doesn’t sound a thing like Ruby anyway.)

      • jeffmorley says:

        Hi David,

        I have seen the film of the press conference and I wasn’t aware that anyone else corrected the “Free Cuba Committee” comment. Who else spoke up? Can we identify?

    • Jordan says:

      I believe he was being asked questions by a police official who is off-screen. Some of that exchange is unclear in the audio of it…

  21. Russ Tarby says:

    good question, connally…
    it doesn’t sound like Ruby’s voice to me, but whoever asked the question that way was certainly expecting Oswald to answer, “That I shot the president.”
    instead, Oswald — whom Capt. Fritz believed had been trained to thwart interrogation — simply ignored the question.
    If he had answered, he would’ve been forever preserved on film and audiotapes uttering the words, “I shot the president.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more