That awkward moment

… when you are told you have been charged with killing the president of the United States of America.


  1. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    BILL LORD, ABC NEWS: At 1:35 this morning a complaint was read. It charged, “Lee Harvey Oswald did voluntarily and with malice of forethought killed John F. Kennedy by shooting him with a gun.” Following the reading of the complaint, Oswald said, “That’s ridiculous.”

    • Bart Kamp says:

      If I am not mistaken, in Joseph McBride’s book ”Into The Nightmare”, that phrase stems from when Oswald was arraigned for the Tippit murder and not JFK’s.

      ‘During that short and sweet hearing’ as Oswald says afterwards that arraignment and during the press conf., and follows up he has not been charged with the pres. murder! To which a reporter says he is, followed by his grimace of being in serious trouble.

  2. David Regan says:

    And the following day, while Captain Fritz is telling the world press “this case is cinched” and D.A. Wade saying they had “enough evidene to convict him now”…Hoover and LBJ were not quite so confident:

    On Saturday, November 23, J. Edgar Hoover had given President Johnson his opinion of the case against Oswald:

    “This man in Dallas. We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. … The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction”.
    (Johnson to Hoover, White House Telephone Transcripts, 23 November 1963, LBJ Library, Austin, Texas)

    • Clarence Carlson says:

      You nailed it. This juxtaposition of the “Dallas story” and Hoover’s careful & more doubtful response has always bugged me. Hoover isn’t my favorite person in the world but he wasn’t stupid and it appears he was being candid with LBJ.

      • David Regan says:

        Absolutely Clarence – and yet our LN counterparts will argue that Hoover was mistaken about his own agents hearing tapes of an Oswald imposter from Mexico City or the Sibert-O’Neil Report was mistaken.

        They also gloss over the fact that individuals who were in positions to have inside knowledge, voiced dissenting opinions to the WC Report.

        “The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated.” – Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, 1969

        “Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission – on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it.” – Hale Boggs, Warren Commission member

        “I can’t honestly say that I have been completely releived of the fact there might have been international connections…I have not completely discounted. I don’t think that they (Warren Commission), or me or anyone else, is always absolutely sure of everything that might have motivated Oswald or others that could have been involved.” President Lyndon Johnson in taped interview with Walter Cronkite, September 1969

    • Interesting that Hoover says “we”(of course charged him with the murder of the President” and then talks about the evidence “they” have.

      • Robert Harper says:

        Also interesting is the fact- uncovered by Rex Bradford-
        that a 14 minute segment of this LBJ-JEH talk was manually erased. A transcript survives but this is only one of two (the other one with Abe Fortas)to be manually erased.
        What could not stand the airing? Since the famous Nixon erasure involved “the whole Bay of Pigs thing” and this is the weekend of the “whole Bay of Pigs thing” I wonder what was so essential to remove in each case?

  3. Ronnie Wayne says:

    “I didn’t shoot anybody”. “I’m just a patsy”.
    The words of a lone nut seeking fame for shooting a President he supposedly liked?
    Or the words of someone who realized he had been set up but couldn’t tell the whole truth because he knew he would be killed?

    • I think LHO hated Connally more than JFK(if he hated JFK at all)

      • David Regan says:

        Paul, you raise an interesting point.

        A memorandum from Warren Commission Assistant Counsel David Belin to General Counsel Lee Rankin dated January 30th 1964, before the first witness testimony was heard, presumes three shots were fired and all three were fired by Oswald “we have three major possibilities: Oswald was shooting at Connally and missed two of the three shots, two misses striking Kennedy; Oswald was shooting at both Kennedy and Connally and all three shots struck their intended targets; Oswald was shooting only at Kennedy and the second bullet missed its intended target and hit Connally instead.”

  4. Mayra Solloa says:

    In his morning call to LBJ, EJH was right about the dubious case against LHO. The 40″ short rifle with scope found by Dallas Police was not the one FBI said LHO has ordered from Klein´s in Chicago, a 36″ carbine. FBI at Klein’s ended up facing problems in the evidentiary record of this transaction. The same happened with the pistol used to kill Tippit. It would have been delivered to LHO by the Railway Express Agency (REA, but FBI couldn´t find even a single signed receipt for this transaction. Thusly, EJH did know what he was talking about when he warned LBJ about a weak case. Oswald was identified as Hidell through the wallet taken from him after his arrest at the Texas Theater, but FBI agent Bob Barrett was filmed handling a wallet at Tippit´s crime scene murder and he said it contained the Oswald/Hidell ID. A third wallet entered into evidence. According to Dallas Police, it was left by LHO at Ruth Paine´s house the very morning of the assassination day. As Jim DiEugenio has emphasized, “the three wallets problem” included that DPD suppressed that from the Tippit´s crime scene to avoid the embarrassment that it had been planted since nobody would buy the fact of LHO having three wallets. Hoover was damn right on the state of the evidence in the morning after the assassination. The next day, the case was solved.

    • “As Jim DiEugenio has emphasized, “the three wallets problem” included that DPD suppressed that from the Tippit´s crime scene to avoid the embarrassment that it had been planted since nobody would buy the fact of LHO having three wallets. Hoover was damn right on the state of the evidence in the morning after the assassination.”~Mayra Solloa

      I brought this issue up with Jim Marss back in the early 90’s some months after we had met on his bookstore tour for ‘Crossfire’ I was reading the portion of the WCReport that mentions the wallet left at Ruth Paine´s house. Then I discovered the wallet Oswald had on him during his arrest.
      I have never met a single man that has more than one wallet at a time, unless perhaps it is Jason Bourne.
      Now this 3rd wallet you bring up is news to me! Yes, pretty hard to swallow.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        The probability of their having been multiple wallets belonging to Oswald is extraorindarily suspicious. The attempts of Lone Nutters to dismiss this out of hand is a perfect example of how disingenuous they are. NOBODY maintains two wallets at one time. There’s too much of a chance that something important will be misplaced or not in our possession when you need it. To do so would be to invite suspicion. If you don’t think so, just imagine this scenario:

        You’re in a rush to make an appointment, you run a traffic light while exceeding the speed limit, a cop pulls you over and when he demands to see your driver’s license, you pull out the wallet that doesn’t contain it, say “excuse me officer, wrong wallet,” and pull out the other one. My guess is you’d very shortly be dealing with multiple police officers asking you questions and searching your car.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      3 wallet’s would have indeed been embarrassing for the DPD and FBI as Mr. D has explained. What one supposedly contained is even more provocative. A J Hidell was not authorized to pick up a large package no one remembered or signed for from Oswald’s
      P O box at the Dallas Post Office. But Richard Case Nagell claimed to have used this alias. The CIA agent who shot the bank roof in El Paso, not robbing the bank but trying to get arrested, on September 20, 1963.

    • David Regan says:

      That’s exactly it, Mayra. According to the memo of a phone call from J. Edgar Hoover to the White House on November 24th, Hoover said that “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”

  5. Avinash says:

    I hope Oswald will be officially exonerated one of these days.

  6. bogman says:

    Can you imagine the power Oswald had those two days when the DPD was parading him in front of the media?

    He could’ve caused an international crisis by declaring the Russians or Fidel had put him up to it, or he could’ve caused a domestic revolution by claiming the CIA or LBJ had been involved.

    In a way, the authorities took a huge chance parading a “nut” who is accused of killing the president in front of media. It’s obvious that Oswald had no political agenda standing as the accused. He just wanted to be released.

    • Thomas says:

      That was his opportunity if he was truly politically motivated to talk about Cuba and how unfair the U.S. policies towards Cuba were.

      I have wondered what if Oswald was the shooter and missed and JFK survived what he would have said. “I wanted attention.” “My wife argued with me the night before and I was angry.” It just doesn’t add up to me that he was acting alone, these motives seem so contrived.

  7. Media Release

    *Publisher’s Launch: January XX, 2015*

    “If Kennedy gets in the way…shoot him.”

    ~Mark 11.22.13

    One Confession ● One Remaining Assassin

    Contact: John Gold



    ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ “In 1963 my employer assigned me a new name—an entirely new identity—to protect their country from retribution should my actions ever be discovered. Over fifty years later it is I who am forced to act under the guise of a false name to protect… my family”

    ~Shooter Two

    (Aka Mark)

    Inline image

    In November of 1962 one hundred and twenty-five men—new recruits barely out of boot camp—from the Army, Navy, and Marines were taken to the U.S. Naval Training center in San Diego. For ten days, each as uninformed as the recruit next to them, they were shuttled to an unnamed facility to undergo psychological profiling under the watch of—what was then called, their instructors. On the eleventh day fifty remained. The 50, given new identities, were flown to North Carolina where they endured physical and mental assessment till thirty remained, then twenty, then ten.

    The psychological evaluations the ten were subjected to could only be called torture. The physical torments made boot camp seem like preschool. At the end, six remained. Six men who over the course of the next year would become an elite squad of military snipers. An assassination team with an undisclosed mission—to them.

    Mark—eighteen, less than four months in the U.S. Navy—was one of the six chosen to fire three bullets on November 22, 1963. “If Kennedy gets in the way…shoot him.” is his confession.

    “A sniper hears the bullet regardless of the silencer.

    He wanted the silencer removed.”


    Reverend John C. Gold is a disabled veteran having served eleven years in the military with the Military Police, CID, and as a Communication Specialist followed by three years in civilian law enforcement. In 2000, John was called to the ministry and in 2014 he graduated from the Ringling College of Art and Design. Nine years after he received his call to the ministry he had no idea that he would begin hearing the confession of the man he calls Mark. Visit for more information.


  8. David Regan says:

    Interesting article by George O’Toole from April 1975. It refers to Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) testing conducted on recordings of Oswald’s denials while in police custody.

    Lee Harvey Oswald Was Innocent –'Toole%20George/Item%2021.pdf

    • Photon says:

      Yes David, Penthouse has always been considered an excellent reference source.
      When during the forty years since publication has there been any documentation that the methods described had any validity whatsoever?

      • Photon, “Men’s Magazines” especially in the early 60’s were already far enough out on the fringe of mainstream because of explicit content. So it was willing to print on political issues with a greater range of freedom. Freedom of speech was a big deal to these editors. fighting one form of suppression gives one the incentive to fight all forms of suppression.

      • David Regan says:


        I’m happy to provide examples of news stories from ‘mainstream’ sources that negate the LN theory. Would you believe those?

        • Photon says:

          Did you do any research? Your referenced article is thirty-five years old!
          In addition, the author stated his opinion that PSE would never be allowed as prosecutorial evidence. How does such an article in any way support your claims about PSE validity?
          PSE is nothing but a subjective and biased technique whose results cannot be proven to be more accurate than chance. Maybe if you posted some valid references from this century you would see the truth about this gimmick .

          • David Regan says:

            That’s simply your opinion, Photon.

            Validation Studies

            On December 17, 1979, the PSE and the polygraph had a face-off in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. A defendant had been convicted in State Court and had been given a life sentence, based largely on an unfavorable polygraph examination. A favorable PSE examination had not been admitted. An American Polygraph Association expert witness appeared for the prosecution and PSE expert witness for the defendant. Most of the testimony at this hearing involved the presentation of the study done on the PSE and polygraph.

            Because of the data presented, the Federal Court found: “This court is satisfied from the evidence that both polygraph and Psychological Stress Evaluator provide substantially reliable methods of evaluating psychological stress, and the Psychological Stress Evaluator is at least as reliable as the polygraph, and possibly more reliable.”

            The court ruled: “Based upon that evidence and upon review of the lengthy trial record, I am of the opinion that petitioner was unconstitutionally denied a fair trial when the court admitted evidence of an unfavorable lie detection report but excluded evidence of a favorable lie detection report, and that he should have a new trial.”

            In 1972 a study was conducted for the Howard County, Maryland Police Department in which 43 criminal suspects took lie detection examinations that were instrumented simultaneously with a polygraph and a PSE. The test of validity was provided by a comparison of the examiner’s conclusions for which complete and concrete corroboration was, or later became available, the PSE proved 100 percent accurate. The polygraph, in the same examinations, produced two cases of “un-testable subjects” and two cases of “inconclusive results.” Comparison with the conclusions of a second, independent examiner produced agreement for 100 percent of the PSE findings and 93 percent for the polygraph.

            In 1979, Dr. Israel Nachshon, Bar Ilan University, Israel, and Tuyva Amsel conducted a study entitled PSE-Polygraph Study, a PSE Validation Study. They conducted the PSE study using tapes made during polygraph examinations of criminal suspects by Israeli Police. Independent corroboration was not used in this case; rather the polygraph findings were assumed to be true. Agreement between the PSE and polygraph occurred in 94 percent of the cases.

            The Nachshon and Amsel study was carried two steps further. In the first step, blind chart reading was employed. The Polygraph examiners read their charts and the PSE examiner read his without being able to identify the subject or make use of global impressions available with the original polygraph calls. In the second step, the PSE and polygraph charts were similarly dissected to remove the control-test patterns of responses so calls could be made simply on stress determination. In both cases, the PSE bettered the polygraph in agreeing with original polygraph findings. As a result, Dr. Nachshon stated, “I was convinced that the PSE is as good as the polygraph as an instrument to detect lies.”

      • Photon, Have you ever been given a PSE (Psychological Stress Evaluation)? I have. I won’t go into the personal results or the reasons for the test, but to say it had nothing to do with a crime nor was the technician law enforcement.

        The main point I want to make here is your dismissive treatment of the article simply because it was published in PLAYBOY Magazine. Judging the messenger rather than the message.
        I think most of us here are aware of the faulty reasoning of your position.

        • Photon says:

          There is no conclusive proof that PSE can give results with any accuracy greater than flipping a coin. Please post any reputable and reproducible source that contradicts that statement, not some reference with no scientific basis or objective neutrality.
          Where is the evidence that PSE has any legal validity?

          • As I said Photon,
            “The main point I want to make here is your dismissive treatment of the article simply because it was published in “Penthouse Magazine”. Judging the messenger rather than the message.”

            This was the point I wanted to make. I am aware that “Lie Detectors” of any kind are not admissible in courts of law.

            This is not a court of law. This is a court of public opinion. In my opinion with the proper experienced operator, both types of lie detectors can give good results.

            If I were an attorney I would not suggest a lie detector to the court. But as we are giving our honest opinions on matters here, I have given mine. So there you have it.

          • As an addendum to my last post, I see that the information I had was dated, and that recent court rulings have now allowed such lie detector tests.
            So my personal opinion as to their viability has now come into concurrence with recent law.

            See: URL link from, David Regan – January 21, 2015 at 5:39 pm

          • David Regan says:

            Is the Indiana Law Journal not credible enough for you, Photon?

            The American Health Research Institute:

  9. I don’t know why anyone thinks Oswald is reacting with utter shock and surprise when he is told “You have been charged” during the noisy and confusing Midnight Press Conference.

    IMO, his facial expression and body language are conveying only *annoyance* and “exasperation* due to all the questions and remarks being shouted at once. He’s more *ticked off* than he is surprised or shocked.

    To me, this is very obvious when we watch either the film version of the Midnight Press Conference or the videotaped version. Oswald is exhibiting his traditional tight-lipped smirk here. He’s irritated. Not shocked or surprised. Just watch….

    • “Oswald is exhibiting his traditional tight-lipped smirk here. He’s irritated. Not shocked or surprised. Just watch….”~David Von Pein

      “Smirk”? You consider that a “tight-lipped smirk” do you? You obviously hate this man to see that in his face. When someone says, “You HAVE been charged” (for killing the president) I can feel the punch in the stomach reaction written all over his face and posture.
      You have a clear prejudice on this issue.
      He is guilty in your mind regardless of all the exonerating evidence now known of.

  10. David Regan says:

    “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.” (WCR:ch 7: Lee Harvey Oswald: background and possible motives)

    How do you separate the Oswald of history from the Oswald of myth?

    In the above statement the WC points out the problem with that question in the first line mainly that Oswald is dead and is stating that the commission itself can’t be sure of its own conclusions. In the absence of a definite conclusion one surely can only make an assumption?

    Yet typically as the WC had already decided that Oswald WAS guilty there follows, through an historical and psychological analysis, the reasons why Oswald WAS the lone assassin. As evidenced on page 376, far from being unable to reach any definite conclusion, the commission now states as fact that Oswald

    “…shot General Walker, assassinated the President, shot Officer Tippit…”

    It is this kind of erroneous statement and reversal typifies the theme that runs throughout the Commissions often ambiguous observations on Oswald.

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, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more