Thomas Mallon asks, did ‘the climate of hate’ kill JFK?

‘Communism killed Kennedy’ remains one of the few defensible statements that the John Birch Society ever issued.

Source: The John Birch Society’s Lasting Influence – The New Yorker

The theory that one man alone killed President Kennedy has a tenacious hold on a respectable minority of JFK writers, including novelist Thomas Mallon, writing in the current New Yorker.

The author of deft books on Watergate and Oswald’s mother, Mallon is a frank and forceful writer: observant, fastidious and conservative. He isn’t one to be detained by tawdry journalistic details like: the Warren Commission itself found no ideological motive for the deed that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly committed; or that Oswald explicitly denied killing Kennedy. Oswald’s proclamation “I’m a patsy” would seem to constitute prima facie evidence that Mallon is wrong, that ideological commitment was not Oswald’s paramount motivation that day. But as a novelist, not a historian, Mallon doesn’t traffic in facts as much as larger truths.

In his various writings about the JFK story, Mallon does not seem much interested in the political context of the crime, much less the damning details that the leadership of the CIA took care to hide from the Warren Commission. He is not interested in the banal fact that Oswald’s travels, politics and foreign contacts were known to a half dozen top CIA operations officers just a few weeks before JFK was killed. (They are named in this October 1963 CIA cable about Oswald). None of this was shared with the accomplished but “naive” staff attorneys for the Warren Commission. These CIA operatives would spend the rest of their lives dissembling about what they knew about Oswald and when they knew it.

Those who worry about such things, Mallon might say, are incapable of accepting the tragic truth that a little communist killed a big man. I could respond by saying those who don’t worry about such things are incapable of accepting the harsh truth that the president’s enemies were capable of manipulating Oswald, organizing an ambush, and escaping detection.

Mallon is fortunate in that he has a JFK theory which he knows for a fact to be factually and historically accurate. I have no such consolation. I don’t think the facts fit his theory. I think there’s a better explanation for JFK’s wrongful death but I’m not a theorist (or a novelist). I’m waiting for CIA declassification of its last JFK files in October 2017. When we have all the facts, then we can talk about theories.

Point of agreement

I do agree with Mallon about one thing: the “climate of hate” in Dallas in 1963.

The “climate of hate” argument holds that Kennedy’s cosmopolitan liberal policies inspired loathing and hatred among the people and political leadership of Dallas and this mood of hostility prompted Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot and kill the president.

Does it really make sense to think that the dominant and bitter right-wing hostility to Kennedy’s cosmopolitan liberal policies among the people and political leadership of Dallas would inspire a self-taught leftist to kill a liberal president? Does that make sense?

No, it doesn’t make sense. It seems quite improbable.

Mallon writes:

“For fifty years, the judgment that the far right was at least indirectly guilty of Kennedy’s killing has been a mainstream position. From William Manchester’s “The Death of a President” (1967) to Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis’s “Dallas 1963” (2013), the argument is made that a hateful climate created by extreme conservatives—particularly General Edwin Walker, a Dallas resident and perhaps the most famous Bircher after Welch—somehow hastened the President’s killing. It simply does not matter that Lee Harvey Oswald, a defector to the Soviet Union, had espoused an ill-tutored form of Marxism from the time he was a teen-ager, or that seven months before killing Kennedy, Oswald, with the same rifle, shot at and nearly succeeded in killing Walker. In April, we are supposed to believe, he was shooting at hate; by November, he was shooting from it.”

The remaining problem

But Mallon’s interpretation of Oswald’s actions on November 22 founders on the same sandbar of fact. What’s the evidence that Oswald took aim at Kennedy for love of communism? Oswald’s comments about JFK ranged from mildly critical (JFK was an ordinary politician) to faintly favorable (he favored civil rights for African-Americans which Oswald instinctively supported). How would communistic fervor cause Oswald to kill a man advancing civil rights policies he admired? And if he acted out of love of communism, why did he immediately deny it? Does that make sense?

No, it doesn’t make sense. It seems quite improbable.

 

 

 

172 thoughts on “Thomas Mallon asks, did ‘the climate of hate’ kill JFK?”

  1. Antoni J. Wrega

    Believe or not, [I am a researcher from
    Poland], but an address in George De Mohrenschildt’s address and telephone book
    I have found disguised as a Slavic last name. It was not a last name but rather
    a name of the street in Warsaw, Poland. The address belonging to a certain
    geologist woman with Ph.D. in geology, being of Polish-Russian origin, dwelling
    in a nice flat, located a very short distance (approx. 150 meters, less than
    200 yards) from Soviet Embassy in Warsaw, then in Communist Poland. She was
    dwelling in this place in the late Fifties and after 1963, she changed her
    address. In this time she was doing her geological research in Siberia (Soviet
    Union) and in Bulgaria. She was absolutely fluent in Russian. Her address in
    George’s address book shocked me very much lately when I made my discovery,
    even earlier I had published (in Polish, in 2014) my book about possible
    George’s connection to the Soviet intel.

  2. Meanwhile, over on the Ed Forum, member Paul Trejo, representing Ruth Paine, posted today,

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22344&page=46#entry324670

    …By the way, Ruth Paine personally advocates the book, Mrs. Paine’s Garage (2002) by Thomas Mallon. He interviewed her best, she said…

    I dunno about that, Paul, but you’re certainly no slouch yourself, thank you very much!

    [Chorus:]
    There’ll be sad songs to make you cry –
    Love songs often do…..

    -Billy Ocean

  3. This is one of the best observations I’ve ever read on JFKFacts:

    “Those who worry about such things, Mallon might say, are incapable of accepting the tragic truth that a little communist killed a big man. I could respond by saying those who don’t worry about such things are incapable of accepting the harsh truth that the president’s enemies were capable of manipulating Oswald, organizing an ambush, and escaping detection.”

    I wish this sharp rejoinder could automatically be posted as a response to every single article that mindlessly repeats the false (and utterly illogical) assertion that “We simply can’t accept that such a great man could be taken down by such a pathetic nobody.” Nobody who bothers to think about this statement for more than a minute could be taken in by it. I suspect that most of the writers who recycle this trite meme haven’t bothered to think about it themselves. In what universe is it more comforting to think that the real murderers got away with their crime than it is to think that a lone gunman did it?

    1. I’m with you Ronnie Wayne. How did we move from Jeff Morley’s question as to whether or not “the president’s enemies were capable of manipulating Oswald, organizing an ambush, and escaping detection” and Mallon’s guarded exposé of the John Birch Society to a wedding ring and a tea cup (metaphorically speaking of course).

  4. Page 5 of the FBI Report.

    The second paragraph is all the proof Oswald would have needed to be found innocent at trial.

    No latent prints of value were developed on Oswald’s revolver, the cartridge cases, the unfired cartridge, the clip in the rifle or the inner parts of the rifle.

    The FBI is admitting they have no prints available on the revolver, the rifle, the cartridge cases or ammunition, the clip in the rifle or inner parts of the rifle.

    Lee Oswald has less than 24 hours to live and the FBI and Dallas Police Department have no physical evidence he committed either crime against President Kennedy or Officer Tippit, however, Oswald would be killed the next day by Jack Ruby.

    http://www.theinnocenceofoswald.com/documents

    See the page at this link for photocopies of the actual FBI document.
    \\][//

      1. “It’s a myth that identifiable fingerprints are always found on firearms and other objects that have been handled.”~Jean Davison

        So what? You still have no proof that Oswald handled that rifle, and THAT is the point of essence.
        \\][//

        1. You still have no proof that Oswald handled that rifle,

          You mean aside from the fact that his palmprint was found on the barrel?

          You mean aside from the fact that he’s seen with that same rifle in the Backyard Photos?

  5. Ask yourself this – what did Tim McVeigh do? He built the truck bomb, then bought a beat up car and parked it several blocks away from his target to be used for his getaway. And that’s what he did. The man had an elaborate plan to blow up the Federal building then escape the crime scene.

    After McVeigh’s capture, he walks defiantly to and from the courthouse and jail surrounded by a bevy of guards, all the while wearing a bullet-proof vest. After his attorneys hook up with him, they suddenly try to humanize him by having smiling photos taken of him behind bars.

    Now compare this with Lee Oswald. He supposedly builds an elaborate sniper’s nest on the 6th floor, supposedly shoots JFK scoring two perfect shots (except for the one where he was way off, striking the sidewalk and nicking a bystander), leaves the scene of the crime by getting on a bus, gets off the bus and hails a cab, gives that cab to a lady, finds another cab, and goes to his rooming house, where he changes his clothes. Then, he supposedly shoots a police officer, even doing a coup de grace shot in his head, throws down his wallet so he’ll be readily identified, goes to a theater, where he’s captured.

    During his perp walk, he introduces a word that many of us probably had never used or heard of before: “I’m nothing but a patsy.” That night, he’s paraded out to the media, where he truly looks bewildered and asking for legal counsel, which he’s never given from then until his death on Sunday.

    Then, the final act, where he’s paraded down a corridor and where his guards are supposedly in a tight 4-man ring, except the man in front casually strolls on ahead, leaving it wide open for him to be shot to death. And the lead guard never even flinches when the shot is fired, unlike the young man next to him.

    Is it any more obvious why, 52 years on, 70% of U.S. citizens still believe in conspiracy?

    1. If one assumes for the sake of argument that Oswald did it, it is very difficult to understand his actions after the shooting.

      If, as some have suggested, Oswald never expected to escape from the building alive after the assassination, one would expect him to hole up on the sixth floor and shoot at anyone who approached him. Instead, he trotted downstairs and bought himself a soda. He didn’t even bother to fire the last bullet in the rifle.

      Whether Oswald committed the assassination for personal glory or in support of his supposed hero Fidel Castro, one would expect him to admit to the crime — to brag about it, even. Instead, he denied it and said he was a “patsy.” He made no political statements of any kind, and certainly none in support of Castro. The theory put forward by some, that Oswald was simply messing with everybody and trying to drag out his moment in the sun, seems like a real stretch to me. The Oswald captured on film that weekend does not seem like someone who’s enjoying the attention he’s getting.

      1. Someone might think that Booth should’ve escaped down a stairway instead of leaping onstage and breaking his leg.

        Sure, he wanted to deliver his message to the crowd. He could’ve done that from the balcony.

        1. That comment is ridiculous, Jean.

          It is not at all hard to understand Booth’s actions. He was a grandiose kind of person who wanted to make a big, dramatic statement. He was an experienced actor and probably assumed he could make the leap without breaking his leg. (For that matter, some historians don’t believe he actually did break his leg when he jumped onto the stage, but later when he was on horseback, since it’s unlikely he could have run out of the theater so quickly with a broken leg.)

          I pointed out that Oswald’s actions do not seem to support the suggestion that he assumed he could not escape from the building. Perhaps you should try to respond to that, rather than introducing a non sequitur in a rude, patronizing tone.

    2. “Is it any more obvious why, 52 years on, 70% of U.S. citizens still believe in conspiracy?”

      With all due respect, my answer to that would be: Because they’re either uninformed or misinformed about the facts of the case.

      It’s often said that Oswald was denied legal counsel, but that’s not true. In response to his request, Louis Nichols from the Dallas Bar Association visited Oswald at the jail and offered his help in finding a lawyer. Oswald declined and told him the same thing he’d told his interrogators before the news conference — he wanted NY attorney John Abt. He said that if he couldn’t get Abt, he might accept someone else.

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

      The boxes forming the SN were already there except for the two smaller ones in the window. If his wallet had been found at the Tippit scene, it would’ve been used as the basis for an APB and as strong evidence he was at the Tippit scene.

      1. “With all due respect, my answer to that would be: Because they’re either uninformed or misinformed about the facts of the case.”~Jean Davison

        And “with all due respect,” my answer to that would be that the population isn’t as stupid as the system hopes they would be. And they refuse to go along with absurd “official stories” such as the Warren Report, and the continuing propaganda efforts to support the Warren nonsense.
        \\][//

  6. Tom,
    I appreciate your concerns as to being on topic. Is not the topic of this particular thread about the “climate of hate” that killed JFK?

    I would say that the specter of fascism is very much an aspect of of that climate of hate. I think the hidden history of fascism in the USA is very much tied together with the milieu that brought us the military coup d’etat in Dallas.

    Almost as interesting as the content of ‘Army Orientation Fact Sheet No. 64’, is the subsequent reaction and suppression of the document, and the firestorm of accusations as to it being of “Communist design”. These are things that have popped up on these very threads just recently; this meme of asserting those who criticize the Warren Report are inspired by “KGB propaganda”.

    Those who know the deeper history of these things understand that the “AntiCommintern Pact” between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in November of 1936, was the genesis of the World Anti-Communist League (1966). At the forefront of “anti-communism” has always been the hand of fascism. It is a dialectical cycle with even deeper more covert roots.

    How do we come to terms with the truth of Dallas, unless we understand the hidden truths that lead up to and reverberate from that event?
    \\][//

    1. Willy,
      There are plenty of places to present on topic or off topic on

      “the hidden truths that lead up to and reverberate from that event?”

      I advocate for all readers and reader/commenters. You had no reaction to my examples of the distortions of the definition of fascism.

      Multiple off-topic posts centering on fascism (for example) or on getting the last word in during personality charged comment exchanges are the types of comment submitted for my consideration, all too often.

      Consider disguising a politically charged vent or a personal provocation by making your comment predominantly
      about link supported on-topic research info and expect rapid approval of your comment!

      When, for example, was the last time you posted something I anticipate readers do come to Jfkfacts.org, expecting to learn of?
      Page 2- http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=12754&search=orleans#relPageId=3&tab=page
      09-15-67 We’ll continue to obstruct Garrison’s investigation, et al, with the cooperation of NARA’s administrator, unless PRESSED to observe the law!!!

      ….or perhaps, this?: (Stephen Tyler’s comments in his ARRB presentation are quite illuminating and thought provoking.)
      https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=Gh6ZVquKLYOB-AWu2YiwCg#q=arrb+stephen+tyler
      ….in connection with this.:

      A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, …
      https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=bo6YVuzjE4OP-gXe55LoCg#q=joan+mellen+jesse+core+%22shoe+leather%22
      Joan Mellen – 2013
      …..
      The International Trade Mart was run by CIA operatives, its public relations handled by David G. Baldwin, who later would acknowledge his own “CIA Connections.”
      Baldwin’s successor, (See: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933&relPageId=2&search=calcutta )
      Jesse Core, was also with the CIA. It was a matter of saving the Agency “shoe leather,” Core would say. The Trade Mart donated money to CIA asset Ed Butler’s INCA. Every consulate within its bowels was bugged….

      A Farewell to Justice – Page 131 – Google Books Result
      https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1597973548
      Joan Mellen – 2011 – ‎Biography & Autobiography
      131, line 27: “shoe leather”: Stephen Tyler interview with Jesse Core, in Shades of Gray: A New Orleans Native’s Search for the Real Clay Shaw. Unpublished .

      https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-12/#comment-849518
      ….and consider that Sen. Schweiker saw a problem, (See lower page at this link.: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1421&search=jesse_and+core#relPageId=65&tab=page ), the FBI had no consistent answer
      to. Please re-read the FBI’s description of Core’s post assassination recap of how he came
      to see Oswald and the details before and after.: (3 pages: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62419&relPageId=54&search=delores_and%20neeley )

      I naively assumed I could lead by example, but now I accept that this is not effective, and you do not read the submitted comments I do not approve. Above is a presentation of the sort of material if included in a comment, will be approved as quickly as I can read it. If anyone reading this is or has submitted a comment, and is wondering why it has not appeared, ask yourself, would a new visitor to Jfkfacts.org, be interested in reading your comment?

  7. General George C. Marshall believed American boys going overseas needed an honest definition of the “ism” they were fighting against. He issued Army Orientation Fact Sheet No. 64, which read, “Fascism: is government by the few, and for the few.”
    Full Text :
    https://archive.org/stream/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-Fascism/Fascism64_djvu.txt

    WAR DEPARTMENT— WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
    24 March 1945

    FASCISM!

    Note For This Week’s Discussion:

    Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze; nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important
    for our future and that of the world that as many of us as possible understand the causes and practices of fascism,
    in order to combat it. Points to stress are: (1) Fascism is more apt to come to power at a time of economic crisis;
    (2) fascism inevitably leads to war; (3) it can come to any country; (4) we can best combat it by making our
    democracy work.

    The fascists promised everything to everyone: They
    would make the poor rich and the rich richer. To
    the farmers, the fascists promised land through elimi-
    nation of large estates. To the workers they promised
    elimination of unemployment — jobs for all at high
    wages. To the small business men they promised
    more customers and profits through the elimination
    of large business enterprises. To big business men
    and the industrialists they secretly promised greater
    security and profits through the elimination of small
    business competitors and trade unions and the crush-
    ing of socialists and communists. To the whole
    nation they promised glory and wealth by conquest.
    They asserted it was their right, as a “superior people,”
    to rule the world.
    […]
    The press, radio, movies, stage — all were put to the task of glorifying war. The school system, from kindergarten to university, justified and exalted tyranny of the strong over the weak. “The school is the preparation for the Army,” said the Nazi Minister of Education.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Does anyone else here recognize contemporary Amerika in that last paragraph?
    \\][//

    1. I serve as an advocate for all commenters and reader-commenters. I’ve been approving some
      comments with content amounting, or devoted to off-topic rants. This process is a juggling
      act, keeping the balls in the air representing information that draws a reader to this site
      There are plenty of more generically political sites to put up these themed comments. We should aim at Jfkfacts.org to comment on JFK Assassination research details and controversies. Do we not have enough to present, consider, and determine is reliable, without changing the spelling of the word, “America” and attempting to educate readers about our political definitions?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/opinion/form-follows-fascism.html?_r=0
      Form Follows Fascism
      By MARK STEVENSJAN. 31, 2005
      …He tried to start a fascist party in the United States. He worked for Huey Long and Father Coughlin, writing essays on their behalf….

      http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1162
      Obituary, New York Times, September 11, 1935
      In reality. Senator Long set up a Fascist government in Louisiana. It was disguised, but only thinly. There was no outward appearance of a revolution, no march of Black Shirts upon Baton Rouge, but the effectual result was to lodge all the power of the State in the hands of one man.

      If Fascism ever comes in the United States it will come in something like that way. No one will set himself up as an avowed dictator, but if he can succeed in dictating everything, the name does not matter. Laws and Constitutions guaranteeing liberty and individual rights may remain on the statute books, but the life will have gone out of them… There is no need to be on the watch for a revolutionary leader to rise up and call upon his followers to march on Washington. No such sinister figure is likely to appear. The danger is, as Senator Long demonstrated in Louisiana, that freedom may be done away with in the name of efficiency and a strong paternal government.

      https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/7012130/
      September 15, 1935
      The Charleston Daily Mail from Charleston, West Virginia · Page 6
      …Some Morals Huey Long an Example of Fascist Method From the New York Times Of Huey Long personally It is no longer necessary to speak except w i t h charity. His motives, ….

      I’ve always been impressed by the amount of space devoted to Huey Long on the ssa.gov site.:
      1997:
      https://web.archive.org/web/19970617035805/http://www.ssa.gov/history/longsen.html
      March, 2005:
      https://web.archive.org/web/20050307054858/http://www.ssa.gov/history/longsen.html

      Sometime after March, 2005, during the last Bush presidential admin., someone with
      write access to the ssa.gov web pages displaying the political history of Sen. Huey Long
      added the disclaimer below, which remains to this day.:
      https://web.archive.org/web/20051222222659/http://www.ssa.gov/history/longsen.html
      This is an archival or historical document and may not reflect current policies or procedures
      Social Security History

      My vision for Jfkfacts.org comments is to foster an atmosphere in which the details most
      strongly supported will determine what is reasonable to believe about JFK Assassination
      matters. I will be less frequently approving comments centered on settling or one upping
      personal “scores” or of generic, soapbox detail.

  8. The climate of hate in the City of hate? or greed? https://youtu.be/lw3CaJd9D-

    “How would communistic fervor cause Oswald to kill a man advancing civil rights policies he admired? And if he acted out of love of communism, why did he immediately deny it? Does that make sense?”

    Allen Dulles wrote British novelist Rebecca West, beseeching her to draw on her fertile imagination to come up with possible motives for Oswald’s crime. The commission was so baffled by the question that Warren even suggested leaving that part of the report blank:http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/14/new-book-on-cia-master-plotter-dulles-sneak-peek-part-3/

    Rebecca West befriended CIA founder Allen Dulles, Charlie Chaplin, Harold Ross of The New Yorker, and historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., among many other significant figures of the day. Her lifelong fascination with the United States culminated in 1948 when President Truman presented her with the Women’s Press Club Award for Journalism, calling her “the world’s best reporter:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_West#Early_career

  9. “Did the climate of hate kill JFK?” Yes and no. I feel sure those who authorized, organized and carried out the assassination hated him. However, the climate of hate in Dallas business and upper society did not pull the trigger IMO. Dallas did provide probably the best atmosphere anywhere to commit the assassination. One where the crime could be blamed on the “climate” in a round about way.
    There’s no question of an air of hate in many circles in Dallas.
    It’s almost a question of where does one start looking, or stop.
    The oil men? H L Hunt and his right wing radio programs. Murchison, financial advisor to LBJ and Hoover, hosting Hoovers annual racing vacation. On to the Petroleum Club and you get TSBD owner Harold Byrd, DeMornschild, Bush and others.
    For news you had Ted Dealy’s editorials and articles in his Dallas Morning News. He wanted a leader on horseback, not JFK on Caroline’s tricycle, as he told him to his face.
    On the political front the only Republican Congressman in Texas at the time Bruce Alger organized the mink coat protest against LBJ in 1960 (which Nixon blamed for costing him the election). For mayor you have Earl Cabell, brother of General Charles Cabell, fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs.
    Religiously you had the pious Reverend Criswell leading the largest Baptist congregation in the world, who thought desegregation was the work of the devil.
    Legally you can start with District Attorney Henry Wade, guest at the local Italian (mob) weekly supper and poker club (yes poker was illegal). He also idolized and fawned over LBJ in letters to him. Another guest of that supper club was Sheriff Bill Decker who also served as a character witness for Civello or Campisi, local mafia heads. Then there’s the good old Dallas Police Department, virtually all members of the KKK or John Birchers.
    Way down on the totem pole is that fixer, pimp, dope dealer, gun runner Jack Ruby. But the Warren Omission found he had no significant ties to organized crime. Not their fault Hoover never told them about him running numbers for Al Capone in Chicago as a kid. Or about the same Carlos Marcello of New Orleans that Bobby Kennedy briefly deported being the “Don” of Dallas organized crime.
    Dallas was a place where those in power could be counted on to look the other way. Or in a pinch, to find someone who would do a hit in the Dallas Police station.

    1. the Zuroma Club was the name of the Dallas Italian-American social gathering that often hosted movers and shakers such as Henry Wade, Earle Cabell and Bill Decker…Jack Ruby sometimes attended these gatherings as did Nofio Pecora, an operative in the Carlos Marcello family in New Orleans, who had been in contact with Ruby throughout 1963.
      the Zuroma Club is well-documented in Mark North’s book, “Betrayal in Dallas.”

    2. I forgot about the Military. General Walker has a current book out about him doing it. I don’t/won’t buy it. I only recently read in some detail about his being run out of the Military (for good reason) by JFK and his assault on James Meredith in the name of segregation. After him you have the FW/D defense industry, Ling Temco Vaught, Bell Hellicopter, General Dynamics among others. My Dad worked for LTV and Bell on a much lower level than all this. Michael Paine had a high level security clearance at Bell. GD got the TFX(?) contract through LBJ…
      If you notice, in other pictures of JFK parades the Military often lining the parade route, facing out, looking for trouble, defending the President. A troop from San Antonio was supposed to be there but they were called off, despite the protests of their commander. But, Military Intelligence was there, in the lead car.
      Here’ a good article on a key figure.

      http://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2013/07/meet-jack-crichton-jfk-murderer.html

        1. “Well that link is good for a laugh, in the latter part of it. Important info in the first part.”~Ronnie Wayne

          Hah! That was exactly what I thought! I got half way through the article and suddenly smelled dog doo on my shoe… Whoops!
          \\][//

    3. Ronnie, We should not overlook the Cipango Club located a block off Turtle Creek on Gillespie. When the H.L. Hunt family hospitality division/Rosewood purchased the Sheppard-King Mansion to build the flag ship hotel, they took possession of the premises of the Cipango, a seldom referenced ‘haunt’ of Dallas influencers rubbing shoulders with the underworld. A fascinating site I stumbled on just now:

      http://annularsystems.blogspot.com/2012/06/three-bennies-and-dallas-crowd.html

      “The Three Bennies and the Dallas Crowd
      I’ve long had an interest in the nightclub scene of Dallas between 1930 and 1960. Every colorful figure of that era seems to turn up in the biographical details of each other. In many ways, it was a very small world and everyone knew each other. My primary interest is not the assassination of JFK, but rather in the biographical stories of the ambitious people who ran the Dallas underworld for several decades. Most of their stories have not been told–at least not in a straightforward, factual way. Some facts can be difficult to discern, though. It is impossible to write about these folks without dealing with the Kennedy assassination, though. For many, it was the defining moment of their lives, and in many ways, that fateful day transformed the history and trajectory of Dallas forever.”

      Having been a Fly On The Wall in the Carriage House of the Cipango Club in the early ’80’s I can attest to some of what this blogger is writing. I’m all the more fascinated because Rosewood hired ’21 Club of New York to run it’s operations when the Kriendler, Berns, Tannen families had no experience in operating hotels.

    4. Declassified CIA/FBI docs describe a meeting between CIA and OAS assassin, Jean Souetre, months prior to the JFK assassination.

      Pfc. Eugene B. Dinking, at an NSA site in Metz, France, intercepts several cables between the CIA station in Italy (Harvey was chief of it then) and an OAS site he had been monitoring, detailing that the murder of JFK was to take place in Dallas, between 11/22 to 11/28.

      An expulsion order was issued by the CIA to pick up French assassin, Jean Souetre in Dallas, hours after the assassination of JFK.

      What is all this stuff with Marcello, the stories of which always appear to track back to the CIA?

      Shame we cannot stick to the facts more. . . .

  10. 1. “The record available online confirms that Oswald was well known to the CIA shortly before JFK was killed — so well known, in fact, that a group of senior officials collaborated on a security review of him in October 1963. And these officials assured colleagues and the FBI that Oswald, far from being a dangerous Castroite, was actually “maturing” and thus becoming less of a threat.
    Read this CIA cable (not declassified until 1993) from beginning to end. You will see that Oswald’s travels, politics, intentions, and state of mind were known to six senior CIA officers as of October 10, 1963. At that date, JFK and Jackie were just beginning to think about their upcoming political trip to Dallas.” From “What Can We Do about JFK’s Murder?” by Jefferson Morley, 11/21/2012, The Atlantic online, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/what-can-we-do-about-jfks-murder/265520/
    2. “Carlos Marcello and his syndicate became a primary target of investigation by the Department of Justice during the Kennedy administration. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy viewed him as one of the most powerful and threatening Mafia leaders in the Nation and ordered that the Justice Department focus on him, along with other figures such as Teamsters president Hoffa and Chicago Mafia leader Sam Giancana. (74)” From http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk9/hscv9e.htm#target

    1. You will see that Oswald’s travels, politics, intentions, and state of mind were known to six senior CIA officers as of October 10, 1963.

      State of mind?

      Intentions?

      That’s a huge stretch. They could have known no such things.

      1. “State of mind?
        Intentions?
        That’s a huge stretch. They could have known no such things.” ~John McAdams

        If these agents were handling Oswald, they would certainly be aware of his state of mind and intentions. If they were manipulating his state of mind and intentions, they would in fact be the intentions of the agents running him.

        All indications are that Oswald was being set up as a patsy. This is the point you are loath to accept, thus your continuing pretense at being ‘baffled’ by the evidence showing what it clearly indicates.
        \\][//

        1. If these agents were handling Oswald, they would certainly be aware of his state of mind and intentions.

          Begging the question. If “agents” were not handling Oswald, they would have known no such thing?

          1. “Begging the question. If “agents” were not handling Oswald, they would have known no such thing?”~McAdams

            Relitigating once more:

            “Read this CIA cable (not declassified until 1993) from beginning to end. You will see that Oswald’s travels, politics, intentions, and state of mind were known to six senior CIA officers as of October 10, 1963.”~Morley

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1565#relPageId=4&tab=page

            http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/what-can-we-do-about-jfks-murder/265520/
            \\][//

          2. Just an added note here on Oswald and his military intel files:

            “Access to Oswald’s military intelligence file, which the Department of Defense never gave to the Warren Commission, was not possible because the Department of Defense had destroyed the file [apparently in 1973]…”
            — Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 223.
            \\][//

          3. These are some pertenent points that should help ease McAdams back into his rocker:

            “Roman and the CI staff drafted a response to the Mexico City station, which said, in effect, Don’t worry. Ignoring the FBI report, the cable stated the “latest HQS info” on Oswald was a 16-month old message from a diplomat in Moscow concluding that Oswald’s marriage and two year residence in the Soviet Union had a “maturing effect” on him. This inaccurate and optimistic message was reviewed and endorsed by five senior CIA officers, identified on the last page of the cable.

            The CIA would kept the names of these highly-regarded officers — Tom Karamessines, Bill Hood, John Whitten (“John Scelso”), Jane Roman, and Betty Egeter — secret for thirty years. Why? Because the officers most knowledgeable about Oswald reported to two of the most powerful men in the CIA: Deputy Director Richard Helms and Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton.

            These high-level aides could have — and should have — flagged Oswald for special attention. All five were anti-communists, well-versed in running covert operations and experienced in detecting threats to U.S. national security.” ~Morley

            http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/what-can-we-do-about-jfks-murder/265520/
            \\][//

          4. You will see that Oswald’s travels, politics, intentions, and state of mind were known to six senior CIA officers as of October 10, 1963.”~Morley

            Nonsense, nothing there shows they knew about his intentions or state of mind.

          5. McAdams,

            A flippant remark like “nonsense” and a hand wave are not sufficient for dismissing the detailed information elucidated in Mr Morley’s essay.

            But I haven’t the sympathy for your position to trudge through the weeds to find you and get your back to the porch of rational conversation.
            \\][//

  11. 1. Lee Harvey Oswald was born Oct. 18, 1939 in New Orleans. His father died before Oswald was born.
    Question: “Was there a connection between Oswald and organized crime?
    Answer: At this point in time, New Orleans was corrupt, and the principle figure behind that corruption, gambling etc, was Carlos Marcello. Oswald at this time brushed up against organized crime in its worst forms.”Oswald’s uncle, a man named Charles “Dutz” Murret, [was] an ex-prize fighter and promoter who was also a bookie. He was under the control of Carlos Marcello, who at that time was the head of the Mafia in New Orleans. These were the people who were in the sphere of Lee Harvey Oswald’s life as a child.” Quote source: G. Robert Blakey, interview on PBS special about Oswald, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/interviews/blakey.html
    2. “In its investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the House Select Committee on Assassinations said that it recognized Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald as a primary reason to suspect organized crime as possibly having involvement in the assassination.[11] In its investigation, the HSCA noted the presence of “credible associations relating both Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby to figures having a relationship, albeit tenuous, with Marcello’s crime family or organization.”[11] Their report stated: “The committee found that Marcello had the motive, means and opportunity to have President John F. Kennedy assassinated, though it was unable to establish direct evidence of Marcello’s complicity.”[11]” From Wikipedia article on Marcello.
    3. “Marina Prusakova was born in Molotovsk on July 17, 1941. She lived with her mother and stepfather until 1957 when she moved to Minsk where she lived with her uncle, Ilya Prusakova, who worked at the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD).” From Spartacus article on Marina Oswald.
    4. In the Marines, Oswald was court-martialed after accidentally shooting himself in the elbow with an unauthorized .22 handgun,” From Wikipedia article on Oswald.
    5. “On April 10, 1963, Oswald attempted to kill retired U.S. Major General Edwin Walker, firing that rifle at Walker through a window, from less than 100 feet (30 m) away, as Walker sat at a desk in his Dallas home; the bullet struck the window-frame and Walker’s only injuries were bullet fragments to the forearm.” from Wikipedia article on Oswald.
    6. “On October 20, (1963) Marina gave birth to a second daughter, Audrey Marina Rachel Oswald.” From Wikipedia article on Marina Oswald Porter.
    7. The area from which Oswald (according to the WC) fired at the motorcade was concealed (according to the WC) but unsecured.
    8. In police custody, Oswald denied assassinating JFK. The WC was unable to identify a clear motive for Oswald to have killed the president.

    1. Witness to the alleged Walker shooting described several tall fellows in suits running from the scene, but no Oswald.

      Edwin Walker pled guilty several times to lewd and indecent behavior (propositioning young fellows in public restrooms).

      Walker, given his history, was hardly any type of reliable source to anything.

  12. And we’re off again in spite of an intriguing thread, pursuing questions of detail instead of teasing out the topic introduced by Mallon related to the influence of the ‘right wing’ upon the dynamics of 11.22.63. At last count, a search for “Birch” in the comments results in 2 hits.

    This for me has to be one of the more refreshing and succinct statements presented on this site in its three year history:

    “. . . those who don’t worry about such things are incapable of accepting the harsh truth that the president’s enemies were capable of manipulating Oswald, organizing an ambush, and escaping detection.” — Jeff Morley

    Yet here we commenters are, chasing after . . . ‘the problem I have with the “official story,” which is that important parts of the story require plausible explanations that are never forthcoming. According to the official story, Oswald returned to his boarding house after shooting JFK. I’ve always found that to be dumbfounding. Oswald had, we are told, just assassinated the most powerful man in the world.’

    . . . rather than pursuing the essence of the thread i.e. Mallon’s (tepid) coverage of the John Birch Society, the ethos of Dallas leading to November 1963, and the triggers that Mallon suggests prompted an alleged lone assassin.

    For starters, Mallon misses the back story of the Birch Society as it related to the National Manufacturer’s Association and the US Chamber of Commerce, the Bradley family, the Koch Brothers, the Hunt family, and the Stoddards of Worcester, MA to name but a few. the JBS was not made from whole cloth. Mallon also fails to tease out the Birch family of Georgia and a descendant, Birch Dilworth O’Neal whose namesake was John Birch.

    Having commented on this site for several years on the topic of Dallas – “the scene of the crime” – and having argued that the political and ideological conditions prevalent in Dallas, November, 1963 fed into the assassination, I only now realize my arguments could have been construed as suggesting Oswald felt motivated because of that ethos. In fact that has never been my position: loosely stated, Oswald was snared and co-opted by elements in the intelligence community that found support in Dallas where his alleged adolescent philosophies, i.e. a history of pro Castro could be distorted and manipulated to position him as the crazed lone gunman, juxtaposed with the crazed right wing element. A true sleight of hand of the magician.
    (cont.)

    1. (cont.)
      Arrangements for the Dallas leg, determination of the motorcade route, failure to secure obvious perches along that route, absurdly clumsy handling of the crime scene both inside 411 Elm and on Elm, the keystone-cops comical arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre in tandem with events at Parkland Hospital involving nervous physicians/medical personnel beholden to Dallas benefactors, ludicrous handling of Oswald’s interrogation (sans taking notes). murder of the accused on live television two days later by a known affiliate of the Mafia, colossal failure of the local Fourth Estate to stay on top of events as they transpired, all indicate an environment easily controlled from the shadows by the element Jeff Morley defines as ‘the president’s “enemies”‘.

      Dallas, backdrop for those enemies who transcend the term ‘right wing’ (an appellation as cover) – and descended into unadulterated quest for power were fueled by the illusion of manifest destiny and made a mockery of the US Constitution on 11.22.63 IN DALLAS.

      1. Arrangements for the Dallas leg, determination of the motorcade route,

        Done by administration political people in DC.

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dallas.txt

        failure to secure obvious perches along that route,

        Never done in presidential motorcades at the time.

        absurdly clumsy handling of the crime scene both inside 411 Elm and on Elm,

        So all the cops you think acted in a “clumsy” way were under the control of the evil conspirators.

        the keystone-cops comical arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre

        How was it “Keystone cops.” In fact, the cops were quite efficient in responding to Julia Postal’s call.

        in tandem with events at Parkland Hospital involving nervous physicians/medical personnel beholden to Dallas benefactors,

        Oh, my! All the doctors were taking orders from H.L. Hunt!

        But what did they do wrong? In fact, they performed well, with an impossible case.

        ludicrous handling of Oswald’s interrogation (sans taking notes).

        But with detailed reports filed. Check the WCR.

        murder of the accused on live television two days later by a known affiliate of the Mafia,

        So the evil right-wingers in Dallas controlled the mafia too, eh?

        colossal failure of the local Fourth Estate to stay on top of events as they transpired,

        Actually, the local media did better than the national media. Most of the crazy errors came over the wire services, filed by national reporters in Dallas.

        all indicate an environment easily controlled from the shadows by the element Jeff Morley defines as ‘the president’s “enemies”‘.

        Oh, my! They had control of everybody!

        1. * “Oswald was snared and co-opted by elements in the intelligence community that found support in Dallas where his alleged adolescent philosophies, i.e. a history of pro Castro could be distorted and manipulated to position him as the crazed lone gunman, juxtaposed with the crazed right wing element. A true sleight of hand of the magician. . . . Arrangements for the Dallas leg, determination of the motorcade route . .

          ‘Done by administration political people in DC.’ — McAdams

          James J. Rowley letter to J. Lee Rankin dated March 26, 1964
          . . . November 15, 1963 . . .
          ‘At 3 pm a meeting was held in the Baker Hotel, attended by the host committee and other interested parties which include, Robert Cullum, President of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce (and former president of the National Petroleum Council whose board included of R.F. Windfohr of Fort Worth who also sat on the board of General Dynamics; the petroleum council’s DC offices were 1625 K Street shared with former Chief of Naval of Operations Robert B. Carney, president of Bath Iron Works, military contractor with decades long contracts with General Dynamics, and board member along with former Director of the CIA, Allen Dulles of Nation-Wide Securities and Frank Pace, president of General Dynamics until 1963. Carney was also on the board of military contractor Bell Helicopter] . . . Erik Jonsson, President of the Dallas Citizens Committee [and president and co-founder of military contractor Texas Instruments and the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest whose president was Lauriston Marshall was responsible for events that set in motion the formal introduction of Ruth Hyde Paine to Lee Harvey Oswald.] . . . THE VARIOUS POSSIBLE ROUTES FROM THE AIRPORT TO THE TRADE MART AND RETURN WERE DISCUSSED (emphasis mine.)’

          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pdf/WH18_CE_1022.pdf

          Statement of Winston G. Lawson
          Page 621, last paragraph:
          [November 19, 1963]
          ‘I later went to a meeting in the Dallas Club with Mr. Puterbagh, Mr. Eugene Locke, Mr. Sam Bloom, Mrs. Betty Harris and others. A discussion was held concerning the reception committee, head table guests, THE SELECTED ROUTE (emphasis mine), guest seating and possible new activity which might be added to the visit of the 22nd.’

          http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_769.pdf

          * failure to secure obvious perches along that route . .

          ‘Never done in presidential motorcades at the time.’ — John McAdams

          As indication the question of unusual and excessive conditions were possible/likely: ‘Chief Curry had announced that the police would be especially watchful and asked that citizens be particularly alert for possible trouble makers (sic).’
          Everyone including the President of the United States knew that he was headed into “nut country.”

          (cont.)

          1. * absurdly clumsy handling of the crime scene both inside 411 Elm and on Elm . . .

            ‘So all the cops you think acted in a “clumsy” way were under the control of the evil conspirators.’ – John McAdams

            The “cops” were acting under the control of a particular fraternal brotherhood made more significant by the ethos of Dallas city fathers, and failed (witting or not) to apply sound practices for instance as they contaminated the crime scene the moment they entered it.

            * the keystone-cops comical arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre . . .

            ‘How was it “Keystone cops.” In fact, the cops were quite efficient in responding to Julia Postal’s call.’ – John McAdams

            In the middle of a city wide search for the assassin of the President, a cadre of police swarmed the theatre on the off chance someone was acting strangely. IF, and this has been argued several times on this site in particular, they believed they were in pursuit of the assassin, how did they know he might be in Oak Cliff. I believe Jean in particular has argued that Truly gave them the Irving address
            .
            * in tandem with events at Parkland Hospital involving nervous physicians/medical personnel beholden to Dallas benefactors. . .

            ‘Oh, my! All the doctors were taking orders from H.L. Hunt!’ – John McAdams

            No mention of H.L. Hunt in my sentence, John; of course you would know nothing about pressures or pleasures one receives from institutional benefactors?

            * ludicrous handling of Oswald’s interrogation (sans taking notes). . . .

            ‘But with detailed reports filed. Check the WCR.’ – John McAdams

            I know you’re joking. They wrote the reports “from memory?” That would be memory that you and Jean and photon attack as unreliable?

            * murder of the accused on live television two days later by a known affiliate of the Mafia . . .

            ‘So the evil right-wingers in Dallas controlled the mafia too, eh?’ – John McAdams

            I know you’re joking with this as well so I won’t pursue it.

            * colossal failure of the local Fourth Estate to stay on top of events as they transpired . . .

            ‘Actually, the local media did better than the national media. Most of the crazy errors came over the wire services, filed by national reporters in Dallas.’ – John McAdams

            That would be the wire services that disseminated the details of Oswald’s history within 3 hours of the assassination? Are you suggesting they erred in doing so?

            * all indicate an environment easily controlled from the shadows by the element Jeff Morley defines as ‘the president’s “enemies”‘.

            ‘Oh, my! They had control of everybody!’ – John McAdams

            No, John, only those in positions to exert the subtlest of pressure knowing how sheep flock.

          2. James J. Rowley letter to J. Lee Rankin dated March 26, 1964. . . November 15, 1963 . . .

            You are completely ignoring the WC testimony of Lawson as to how the route was chosen.

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lawson.htm

            The documents you cite simply show normal “advance work” in planning for a presidential visit. Of course, since you think everybody who was anybody in Dallas was part of an assassination conspiracy, all these people are sinister in your eyes.

            But that just shows you know little about U.S. politics. When a president visits a city, local notables are involved.

            As indication the question of unusual and excessive conditions were possible/likely: ‘Chief Curry had announced that the police would be especially watchful and asked that citizens be particularly alert for possible trouble makers (sic).’

            But what they had in mind for “trouble” was something like the incident were Adlai Stevenson was hit with a placard.

            You have not denied that “obvious perches” were never secured in any motorcade. There was no possibility of that. If you’ll look at footage of the motorcade on Main Street, you’ll see a huge number of buildings with open windows over the motorcade route.

          3. The “cops” were acting under the control of a particular fraternal brotherhood

            And your evidence of this “fraternal brotherhood” that controlled all the cops?

            In the middle of a city wide search for the assassin of the President, a cadre of police swarmed the theatre on the off chance someone was acting strangely.

            A man who fit the description of the Tippit shooter was seen acting strangely just a few blocks from where Tippit was shot.

            And you find it strange that cops stormed the theater?

            No mention of H.L. Hunt in my sentence,

            So you don’t think he was involved? If so, he must be the only important person in all of Texas you think was not involved.

            of course you would know nothing about pressures or pleasures one receives from institutional benefactors?

            So they let Kennedy die when they could have saved him because of the “institutional benefactors?”

            In what say do you think they performed poorly?

            Do you think they could have saved Kennedy?

            Have you seen Zapruder frame 313.

            ‘So the evil right-wingers in Dallas controlled the mafia too, eh?’ – John McAdams

            I know you’re joking with this as well so I won’t pursue it.

            Why did you mention the mafia?

            No, John, only those in positions to exert the subtlest of pressure knowing how sheep flock.

            People who rail against “the elite” always turn out to be the most elitist with the most demeaning ideas about ordinary citizens.

          4. ‘The documents you cite simply show normal “advance work” in planning for a presidential visit.’ – John McAdams

            The Lawson and Rowley statements indicate that Dallas luminaries (with deep ties to the military industrial complex) were involved in discussion (ergo determination) of the motorcade route. They also reflect additional concern for the Dallas leg of the president’s trip because of the climate in the city. You are disingenuous if you deny this. And they routed President Kennedy thru a triangulated kill zone. How many times had that happened in recent history c. 1930-1963.

            ‘And your evidence of this “fraternal brotherhood” that controlled all the cops?’
 — John McAdams

            The term was descriptive John, emphasizing the loyalty, and on occasion application of ‘the rule of silence’ which bound the department as it muddled through the early hours of investigation. But two examples: members of the brotherhood that entered 411 Elm knew they were not preserving the ‘crime scene’, and all present knew that the evidence was being compromised – any who came forward later were shunned or worse; the brotherhood knew Will Fritz was obliged by procedure to take notes during the interrogation but is there evidence that any admonished him at the time or criticized him for not doing so in hindsight?

            (cont.)

        2. * murder of the accused on live television two days later by a known affiliate of the Mafia .. .

          ‘So the evil right-wingers in Dallas controlled the mafia too, eh?’ — John McAdams

          John, perhaps this will flex your dot connecting muscles and build your awareness of the potential contribution of “flies on the wall.”

          We should not overlook the Cipango Club located a block off Turtle Creek on Gillespie. When the H.L. Hunt family hospitality division/Rosewood purchased the Sheppard-King Mansion to build the flag ship hotel, they took possession of the premises of the Cipango, a seldom referenced ‘haunt’ of Dallas influencers rubbing shoulders with the underworld. . . . interesting in light of the contract Rosewood struck with ’21 Club of New York – with no record of managing hotels but handed a lucrative contract to open their flagship.

          – Ivy Miller. Miller later went on to buy the Cipango Club
          – main casino was the Southland Hotel, though he also worked the Blue Bonnet & Cipango Club

          Could Ruby and McWillie have moved in such “higher” circles by their ability to supply women, drugs, and gambling? McWillie told the House Committee that he ran “stag parties” at the Cipango Club for Dallas Gamblers Ivy Miller . . . P.D. Scott, “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”

          That same year, the Dallas Police department’s Office of Intelligence listed Jack Ruby and “Chicago-Las Vegas hood Lewis McWillie” as being among those connected with mob run gambling in Dallas. (1) John William Tuohy, The Cal-Neva Lounge (2001)

        3. (cont.)
          ‘A man who fit the description of the Tippit shooter was seen acting strangely just a few blocks from where Tippit was shot.
And you find it strange that cops stormed the theater?’ – John McAdams

          I don’t see in Brewer’s testimony that he heard a description of the Tippit shooter?


          In the middle of a city wide hunt for the assassin of the President of the United States (which presented the potential for a national crisis including an attempt at overthrow of the elected government), wasn’t it odd that so many cars and personnel were dispatched to the theatre on the off chance someone was behaving in what one person believed to be strange? (Brewer was that sole witness.) Unless the dispatch new something that we don’t know they knew … LHO’s Oak Cliff address.

          Mr. BREWER – I heard a noise outside, and I opened the door, and the alley, I guess it was FILLED WITH POLICE CARS AND POLICEMEN filled with police cars and policemen …And I and two or three other officers walked out on the stage and I pointed him out, and there were officers coming in . . . and officers going from the back . . . and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting,… I heard some of the police holier, I don’t know who it was, “KILL THE PRESIDENT, WILL YOU.” . . . (emphasis mine)

          So contrary to other arguments on this site, at least one law enforcement officer believed they were in pursuit of the President’s assassin when they went to the Texas Theatre.

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

          ‘So they let Kennedy die when they could have saved him because of the “institutional benefactors?”’ – John McAdams


          Kennedy was dead, John. What they knew, as citizens of Dallas, was the volatile climate and who the players were.

          
’Why did you mention the mafia?’ – John McAdams


          Jack Ruby was a known associate of the Mafia. When the H.L. Hunt (a known professional gambler) family hospitality division/Rosewood purchased the Sheppard-King Mansion to build the flag ship hotel, they took possession of the Carriage House of the Cipango Club, a seldom referenced ‘haunt’ of Dallas influencers rubbing shoulders with the underworld. . . .

          – Ivy Miller. Miller later went on to buy the Cipango Club
– main casino was the Southland Hotel, though he also worked the Blue Bonnet & Cipango Club
          https://books.google.com/books?id=uisEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=benny+binion+texas+dallas+ivy+miller&source=bl&ots=exTAefB4_S&sig=oE6cVfBkczf0QOKTK8okZ-2kniA&hl=en&ei=9yr3S97pEsH_lgeG8YHvCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=benny%20binion%20texas%20dallas%20ivy%20miller&f=false

          That same year, the Dallas Police department’s Office of Intelligence listed Jack Ruby and “Chicago-Las Vegas hood Lewis McWillie” as being among those connected with mob run gambling in Dallas. (1) John William Tuohy, The Cal-Neva Lounge (2001)

          Could Ruby and McWillie have moved in such “higher” circles by their ability to supply women, drugs, and gambling? McWillie told the House Committee that he ran “stag parties” at the Cipango Club for Dallas Gamblers Ivy Miller . . . P.D. Scott, “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”

    2. Leslie, what I do not understand is why you and so many conspiracy theorists assume that Oswald would have to conform to what YOU think that he should have done, or what YOU define as rational or logical behavior, while ignoring what he ACTUALLY did. The only way CTers can explain away Oswald’s shooting of Tippit or his attempted shooting in the Texas Theatre is to claim that he was never involved in either episode, for each one demonstrates that he was willing to kill-which most CTers simply cannot accept, no matter what the evidence is.
      Oswald’s motive was to kill a notable political figure, preferably one in conflict with his Marxist ideals. That is about all we can say about his motives-and is sufficient for anybody who accepts the physical evidence. If Hinckley had not been captured alive who would have ever believed the Jodie Foster motivation? If Chapman had not been taken alive who would have believed his motivation for shooting Lennon?
      Irrational acts do not have to have rational explanations to explain the perpetrators’ actions. The most simple explanation is almost always the real explanation.

      1. The Photon Observation about Hinckley and Chapman is at first cogent, and would be compelling to low information observers- It is undermined when we realize that Hinckley and Chapman were diagnosed in advance as profoundly mentally ill and LHO was anything but- LHO was a Marine who learned Russian, and served at one of the most sensitive military facilities on the Planet- The People who performed these functions were vigorously vetted. What LHO did and why he did it after he was discharged is a reason d’etre for this site. I have never heard an arguement that questions LHO’s sanity-

      2. Both Hinckley and Chapman exhibited mental illness issues prior to their deeds. Oswald did not.

        And if the WC was so bent on proving Oswald was insane, why not include a prominent psychiatrist on the panel or even interview one for chrissakes?

      3. photon, as Jeff Morley observed: “These CIA operatives would spend the rest of their lives dissembling about what they knew about Oswald and when they knew it . . .” followed with, “Those who worry about such things are …. incapable of accepting the harsh truth that the president’s enemies were capable of manipulating Oswald, organizing an ambush, and escaping detection.” Something in your experience causes you to fall into that category, photon. It would be interesting to know if you ever “privately not publicly” considered that the president’s enemies were “willing” not just capable of manipulating Oswald and organizing an ambush?

        I would argue, ‘what YOU say . . . he ACTUALLY did.

        As far as I’m concerned, the shooters did not act spontaneously as you seem to insist Oswald did; virtually overnight he decided to shoot the president in broad daylight, in full view, from a long distance, with no plan for escape.

      4. Do folks like Photon, McAdams, Davidson and the repellant DVP contemplate how contemptible their attacks on LHO may be to people who have actually studied the JFKA? There is every probability that LHO was a loyal and brave American patriot- This man was a marine, and likely one of a handful of double agents who went into Russia on a mission some did not return from- He likely served our Intelligence community faithfully as he performed operations that surveyed the entire right /left wing political spectrum. We know LHO lived a very complex life and if the above individuals write him off as a malevolent Forrest Gump / Zelig / Chauncey Gardner, this fact alone effectively undermines any shred of credibility. An attempt to Tar and Feather LHO as a LN impulsive killer was viable in 1964- It is fairly offensive to intelligent people in 2016-

      5. Photon: “If Hinckley had not been captured alive who would have ever believed the Jodie Foster motivation?”
        Photon: “The most simple explanation is almost always the real explanation.”
        A pretty flagrant self-contradiction. In the Hinckley case, you appear to be saying that the most baroque, convoluted and implausible explanation is the real (or, better, the true) explanation.
        Presumably, if Hinckley or Chapman had died, then the true explanations of their actions would have remained unknown. Of course, someone may have hit upon the correct answer, but that answer would have looked like the wildest speculation. So the banal, commonsensical OUTWARD APPEARANCE of an explanation is no guarantee of its truth.

        1. What I implied was that not knowing a motivation does not mean that there isn’t one-only that a motivation can be unrecognized and sometimes irrational. To claim that someone could not have committed a deed because you do not know what motivated that individual is also irrational-but that argument has been made on this blog.

          1. I’m still rather confused. If Oswald’s motive was unknown, which I’m willing to accept, then I don’t see how you can write with such apodictic certainty that: “Oswald’s motive was to kill a notable political figure, preferably one in conflict with his Marxist ideals.” So his motive is both unknown and known?
            I think those who claim certainty in this case have at least as much explaining to do as those who are unconvinced and given to “conspiratorial” speculation (and possibly more).

  13. Thomas Mallon writes well, but when it comes to the JFK murder he neglects one thing writers should value above style, TRUTH.

    from my 2002 review of his disgraceful book, ‘Mrs. Paine’s Garage’:

    Instead of exploring the Paines’ unholy alliance with Dulles in this book, Mallon wallows in Ruth’s Quakerism and her worries over her lost friendship with Marina. Instead of examining Michael’s classified work at Bell Helicopter or his father’s interest in the assassination of Leon Trotsky, he describes the husband’s fascination with cabinetry and contradancing. In doing so, Mallon effectively trivializes the JFK murder and expressly taunts conspiracy theorists who insist that the Paines deserve more serious probing. Mallon actually mocks longtime assassination researchers by comparing them to “Trekkies,” the cult-like followers of a long-ago canceled TV science fiction show. Having endeared himself to Ruth, courting her carefully over years via mail and telephone in order secure her permission to interview her at length about the murder of the president, Mallon literally sold out.

    1. “Thomas Mallon writes well, but when it comes to the JFK murder he neglects one thing writers should value above style, TRUTH.”~Russ Tarby

      Excellent point! And to expand on it a bit, I would add that style and form are derived from an author’s cognizance or lack thereof.
      Written text, as is all symbolic languages a series of compound metaphors. We call the stacking of these metaphors, “re-as-on” reason: To re, as, on the top of the stack of ever focusing metaphor.

      It is the author’s conscious awareness of the context of his/her central epistemic space of the totality of this inner construct that provides the most accurate representation of mortal life in the context of the Time/Space Continuum.

      In this sense, style and form are everything and substance and meaning will arise in their wake’ as ever widening waves of conscious thought waves – or patterns if you will.

      When Jefferson proclaimed, “We hold these Truths Self Evident,” he did not let the point go unattended, but added the points that were ‘obvious’ as in ‘self-evident’, and continues adding to that original base, a firm and lasting PROOF, of what was asserted to be self evident. That is the thing about universal truths; because they are TRUE there is a path to find them in critical and lucid reasoning.

      Consideration of any topic within artificially narrow barriers is an irrational constriction of context, for all integers are interconnected in a matrix as a whole.

      “Ta Panta Nous” is a holistic conceptualization from Ancient Greece. The concept is at once complex and extraordinarily simple, depending on ones degree of cognizance. What seems a paradox, is found to be in fact a Paradox. And it is that paradox that divides Time & Space.
      There is only ONE, that cannot be divided. And we are that.
      [1≡∞]
      \\][//

      1. Even more interesting: Michael Paine’s family relationship to Henry Cabot Lodge (on the Lodge side) and to our present SecState, John Kerry (on the Cabot and Dudley side).

        Or. . . maybe it really is a Small World After All . . .

    2. Instead of exploring the Paines’ unholy alliance with Dulles in this book,

      “Alliance?”

      Where in the world did you get that? Explain how there was an “alliance.”

      You might start by explaining how Dulles ever met or had any contact whatsoever with either of the Paines.

      1. He just dropped by while in town to say hi to old friends of the family (and his Mistress Mary Bancroft).
        Just kidding John. I don’t think Dulles would have associated with the Paine’s at this point in time.

      2. many years before the JFK assassination, Dulles and his longtime mistress, Mary Bancroft, vacationed with Ruth Paine’s family, the Hydes, on Naushon Island.
        Ruth’s dad eventually took jobs working for CIA fronts in Latin America, and her sister also worked for the intelligence agency. As late as the 1990s Ruth herself was in Nicaragua taking notes and taking photos.
        David Talbot’s meticulously researched new book — The Devil’s Chessboard” — goes into great detail about the Hyde-Dulles connection, in his chapter titled “The Fingerprints of Intelligence.”

        1. many years before the JFK assassination, Dulles and his longtime mistress, Mary Bancroft, vacationed with Ruth Paine’s family, the Hydes, on Naushon Island.

          And this equals an “alliance?”

          How old was Ruth? What year was this?

          Ruth’s dad eventually took jobs working for CIA fronts in Latin America,

          And what “CIA fronts” was that?

          her sister also worked for the intelligence agency.

          Worked for the CIA? Evidence on that? And if so, was everybody in the CIA a good buddy of Dulles? And if so, was being a good buddy of Dulles mean your sister was in an “alliance” with Dulles?

          Ruth herself was in Nicaragua taking notes and taking photos.

          And this is evidence of what? Some of the paranoid lefties that were down in Central America helping Communist movements thought this was suspicious, but their suspicion is not evidence.

          David Talbot’s meticulously researched new book — The Devil’s Chessboard” — goes into great detail about the Hyde-Dulles connection,

          I’m afraid those “connections” are the sort we get from Tom S. and Leslie here. Tenuous, third order “connections” that don’t mean anything.

          1. “I’m afraid those “connections” are the sort we get from Tom S. and Leslie here. Tenuous, third order “connections” that don’t mean anything.”
            ~John McAdams

            They “don’t mean anything” to you John, because what they actually mean is an interconnected milieu of blood and family that serves as a foundation for understanding the issues and architecture of political power.
            And this is something you are loath to admit, or accept, because the connections are known and traceable.
            \\][//

      3. There existed a land where the rulers held sway and let the populous pretend to elect their leaders. The rulers had courtesans, generals, bankers, police, courts, coroners, spies, assassins, lackeys, and criminals among their assorted coterie. The intrigue of the rulers was such, that they overthrew foreign and domestic heads of state inimical to their global interests, using members of their own coterie as planners, but fielding the coup work (through intermediaries) to criminals and mercenaries; thus, the rulers could deny any direct involvement. One day the rulers decided an elected leader at home needed to be removed. They demanded the head of JFK. Mercenaries killed the elected leader as he rode along the downtown streets of Dallas, a dangerous and hate filled city controlled by the rulers and criminals who plotted the coup. They designated the patsy as a lone-assassin. The criminals also killed the patsy on behalf of their rulers, who would cover up the criminal’s involvement. The criminals and the rulers mutually admired each the other, for they sought the same goal: kill this hated elected leader. The citizens became suspicious and began to foment obvious counterpoints to the ruler’s official fiction. They uncovered the truth of a conspiracy and cover-up in the murder of their elected leader, JFK. Undaunted by these conspiracy truth seekers, the rulers blindly adhered to the official fiction. In time, the criminal rulers took the TRUTH to their ignoble graves.

  14. So we learn a lot about the John Birch Society in this article, but only glancing touches of any real in depth knowledge of the JFK Assassination.

    If Mallon had studied the actual assassination event as much as the John Birch Society, there might be some merit to his opinions.
    As it stands I find it to be more bunk and propaganda.
    \\][//

    1. Love this riposte, Willy…it totally reflects the contemptuous perspective, by those in power, of those elements guarded and considered dumb…but we do see what goes on!

    1. Thomas Mallon wrote a book about Ruth Paine. The only book about Marguerite Oswald I’m aware of is “A Mother in History” by Jean Stafford.

    1. “There is simply no real evidence whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. It has all been contrived…”

      Please tell us that story sometime, about how all the evidence was contrived. No one else ever has.

      Saying “fake” over and over isn’t an explanation.

      1. “Please tell us that story sometime, about how all the evidence was contrived. No one else ever has.”~Jean Davison

        Get serious Jean; this blog is jam-packed with proofs of contrived evidence. If you don’t get it by now you are simply willfully ignorant.

        And this come back of “see you don’t have anything or you would of posted it” is an old trick top hat ploy that has become such a bore.
        \\][//

        1. “Get serious Jean; this blog is jam-packed with proofs of contrived evidence. If you don’t get it by now you are simply willfully ignorant.”

          No, you don’t get it. We’ve heard the same old complaints about the evidence for 50 years, yet no one has ever explained how it got there. The only narrative explaining that is the WC’s.

          1. “We’ve heard the same old complaints about the evidence for 50 years, yet no one has ever explained how it got there.”~Jean Davison

            You have been walked through this evidence time and again, and now frame it as “old complaints”, when reason shows them to be valid and immovable points of fact.

            The Warren Report is bunk. Defending this grimoire of fantastical mythology as truth at this point, is to reach the point of the blithering, hysterical shrieks emitted from Bedlam.
            \\][//

          2. The Warren Report is bunk. Defending this grimoire of fantastical mythology as truth at this point, is to reach the point of the blithering, hysterical shrieks emitted from Bedlam.

            Anybody paying attention sees that you buffs are getting your clock cleaned whenever you bring up any factual issue.

            So instead you retreat to the Two Minutes Hate ritual.

          3. John McAdams – “Anybody paying attention sees that you buffs are getting your clock cleaned whenever you bring up any factual issue.”

            An observation: the three most active official story advocates on this forum – McAdams, Jean Davison, Photon – have between them the benefit of many decades of inquiry into this most complex and detailed case. Many of the posters who they choose to debate here do not have benefit of that background or experience. So what explains the continual pronouncements of victory and rush to proclaim “case closed”? A rough analogy: the Pittsburgh Steelers play an exhibition match against a high school team, and following it the Steelers coaches and players rush on to Twitter to boast. That would be unseemly, as it is here. Besides, historical research should not be considered a zero sum game.

            That said, efforts to correct long-standing “factoids” – to correct the record – are always useful. There is a lot of incorrect notions and half-truths used to critique the Warren Commission’s findings, but conversely there is a huge amount of “factoids” propping up the official story too, many of which are constantly presented in this Forum by the above-named trio of advocates. For example, elsewhere in this thread, Photon repeats yet again one of his personal favourite “factoids” – namely that Oswald attempted to kill a Dallas police officer in the Texas Theater. That surmise is not supported by the record generated before Oswald himself was killed, and is clearly an embellishment created to assist in painting Oswald as homicidal. Which is indeed the purpose behind Photon’s use of it.

          4. “A rough analogy: the Pittsburgh Steelers play an exhibition match against a high school team, and following it the Steelers coaches and players rush on to Twitter to boast. That would be unseemly, as it is here.” — jeffc

            Why follow this site at all, jeffc, if you believe you’re following “high school team” quality material vs. the official version/Warren Commission Report which you evidently equate with the performance of a successful year for the Pittsburgh Steelers? What is your motivation for even weighing in with such an amateur effort; the same question has been posed to Jean Davison (not Davidson(), John McAdams, and photon (aka who knows)? Perhaps you recognize their coach is being paid far more by the owners of their team than those of this spunky lot who find themselves loosely connected in the pursuit of exposing the truth at jfkfacts? Or perhaps you have not studied the assassination in depth enough to make a measured assessment.

          5. A rough analogy: the Pittsburgh Steelers play an exhibition match against a high school team, and following it the Steelers coaches and players rush on to Twitter to boast. That would be unseemly, as it is here.

            I don’t think the conspiracists here will appreciate that analogy.

          6. The analogy was directed to McAdams/Davison/Photon, not so-called “conspiracists” on this Forum. My point being that between them there are literally decades of work honing talking points and rebuttals. Few persons advocating a conspiracy position, on this Forum, can match that experience – which is not the same as saying the trio are correct in their conclusions. What I had noticed is a recent tendency on their behalf to boast and claim debate “victory” based on sometimes dubious and sometimes accurate “debunking”, often directed at pieces of information which are half-remembered or second hand. This rush to claim victory, in my opinion, indicates a stance which determines the JFK assassination debate as a zero-sum game, by which they are on a “team” and the object is to “win”. The stakes are larger than that, as authors such as David Talbot understand, as the assassination is a prism through which our contemporary social and political situation gains clarity.

          7. as authors such as David Talbot understand, as the assassination is a prism through which our contemporary social and political situation gains clarity.

            I’m afraid it works the other way.

            Conspiracists start with their views about the “contemporary social and political situation” and project those contemporary back onto the assassination.

            If you are obsessed with how evil people are now secretly in control of American politics, you want to believe that the assassination of JFK was a project of those same sorts of evil people.

          8. jeffc, well stated, and I thought your analogy seemed out of character from other comments you have made that I for one have paid close attention to. But now I’m curious. Could you site several examples of ‘half-rememberd’ or ‘second-hand’ information that in any way weaken the argument a conspiracy was behind the assassination? A brief analysis might advance the quality of arguments?

            Your summation – ‘the assassination is a prism through which our contemporary social and political situation gains clarity’ says it all, doesn’t it.

          9. John McAdams: “Conspiracists start with their views about the “contemporary social and political situation” and project those … back onto the assassination.”

            While that might be true for some, it is otherwise a prejudiced overstatement and false assertion. Many, particularly from the first generation of critics, began looking into the case holding a firm belief in the decency and incorruptibility of the American political and legal system, and found those beliefs severely challenged. For example, see memoirs by Gaeton Fonzi, Barry Ernst, and Joseph McBride.

            A similar process is portrayed in the Costa-Gavras film “Missing”, as Jack Lemmon’s character attempts to understand what happened to his son in post-coup Chile. When that film was released in 1982, then Secretary of State George Schultz appeared on national news programs to denounce the film and deny that the US government had anything officially to do with the coup or knew anything about the missing Americans. Documents released many years later showed that Shultz was utterly wrong on both counts, as he must have known when he assured the public otherwise.

            The most pertinent example of putting the horse before the cart in the JFK case is the Warren Commission’s early conclusion, expressed in Norman Redlich’s April 27, 1964 memo to J Lee Rankin: “The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.” This was written after repeated viewings of the Zapruder film, including the violent backwards motion of the President after the fatal shot.

          10. “The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.” This was written after repeated viewings of the Zapruder film, including the violent backwards motion of the President after the fatal shot.

            The part you quote is followed by this:

            As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.

            So Norman Redlich is wanting to take the investigation to Dealey Plaza to see if the trajectory works. That’s an honest person writing.

            You think the “back and to the left” motion indicates a shot from the front. But experts in wound ballistics and firearms don’t see it that way.

            And the WC was working with an autopsy that said two shots from behind.

          11. “You think the “back and to the left” motion indicates a shot from the front. But experts in wound ballistics and firearms don’t see it that way.
            And the WC was working with an autopsy that said two shots from behind.”~McAdms

            “experts in wound ballistics and firearms” That were bought and paid for by the government.

            “And the WC was working with an autopsy” that is the medical hoax of the century.

            \\][//

          12. McAdams: “You think the ‘back and to the left’ motion indicates a shot from the front. But experts in wound ballistics and firearms don’t see it that way.”

            If it was so obvious a conclusion, why not then accurately describe the back and to the left motion from the Z film in the WC? You should be able to provide a defensible explanation that keeps with your opinion that the WC was a fair and impartial review of the case.

          13. There were four contradicting witnesses to Ruth Paine’s claim of Oswald carrying a bag to work large enough to contain a rifle, even broken down.

            Must one repeat this an infinite amount of times for all the Jean Davison’s and McAdams out there????

            And the Warren Commission’s false claim that Oswald rejected any legal representation, when the clips of Oswald at that 12:00AM news gathering at the DPD station clearly shows Oswald pleading for legal representation.

            Enough is enough, to the Jean Davison’s and their ilk!

          14. sgt_doom,

            The bag with Oswald’s prints found in the sniper’s nest was long enough to carry his rifle. As I recall, there were only two witnesses to Oswald carrying a bag and neither was Ruth Paine.

            “And the Warren Commission’s false claim that Oswald rejected any legal representation, when the clips of Oswald at that 12:00AM news gathering at the DPD station clearly shows Oswald pleading for legal representation.”

            Right, and here’s the president of the Dallas Bar Association the next day saying that Oswald had just rejected his offer to help him find a lawyer:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt05seXf5gc

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

        2. “Anybody paying attention sees that you buffs are getting your clock cleaned whenever you bring up any factual issue.”~John McAdams

          Quite a bold statement, considering you have no manner of discovering who is “paying attention”, nor what their opinion of who is getting their “clock cleaned” in these debates.

          I would venture to propose that many can see that your critical facilities are far under par, and that your incurious nature leaves you open to gullibility and missing of fine points, as well as your general inept epistemological construct.
          \\][//

  15. Given the known untenable position some hold despite the factual reality regarding Oswald, I think it fair to say that, when you look at the actions of those players vociferously touting the lone gunman assertion, it soon dawns on those questioning such a contrived theory, that the holders of these lone gunman ideas are quite delusional and wish to ensnare as many as possible in their delusions. Truth is an inconvenient orphan in their world, where bastardization of facts forms the foundation of their edifice of worship:The Warren Omission and their false admission that Oswald shot JFK.

    1. the holders of these lone gunman ideas are quite delusional and wish to ensnare as many as possible in their delusions.

      Hurts to get one pet factoid after another debunked, doesn’t it?

    2. “Hurts to get one pet factoid after another debunked, doesn’t it?”

      ‘Hurt” implies a wounding or injuring, whether physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual. Refusing to accept your framing of your own failures, John, is the easiest way to debunk your delusional position. Jesse Curry admitted that no one could place Oswald in the window with the rifle actually pulling the trigger and firing the shots that killed JFK. Curry has all the credentials your pack of propagandist and dissemblers accepts, for his word to be sacrosanct. Even Allen Dulles was dismissive of Americans actually reading the Warren Omission fiction. Furthermore, Roselli admitted that a sniper team sent into Cuba was ‘turned’against Kennedy (he claimed by Castro) but when you discern his closeness to Trafficante, Marcello, Giancana, Harvey and other CIA Kennedy-haters, inserting “we” for “Castro” really reveals the truth of “who” actually shot JFK. The following link gives some insight regarding Roselli, his circle and the JFK assassination: the CIA, MAFIA, and Cubans.
      http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=11857.0;wap2

  16. The idea that Oswald killed JFK because he (Oswald) idolized Castro seems to have gradually displaced the Warren Commission’s non-conclusion that Oswald was just a weird, frustrated guy who did it for no real reason. A bunch of retrospective articles came out during the 50th anniversary — in Slate, the New Yorker, Mother Jones, and several other prominent publications — pushing the exact same line: That the conspiracy theorists were all very silly people who were wasting their time, that Oswald was a lone gunman (and so, by implication, was Ruby, but I’ve noticed that people who ridicule JFK conspiracy theories tend not to bring up Ruby at all), and that the only remaining mystery is Oswald’s motive. This “mystery,” according to most of these writers, can finally be explained: Oswald hated JFK because he (Oswald) loved Castro, so the assassination was payback for JFK’s campaign against the Cuban leader.

    Never mind the fact that the Warren Commission found no fewer than six witnesses saying that Oswald seemed to like JFK (and none who said that he disliked him or even opposed his politics), or the fact that Marina Oswald told Priscilla Johnson McMillan that Lee believed that JFK was trying to have a better Cuban policy but was being held back by the rest of the government, or the fact that Oswald told Dallas police that LBJ’s Cuban policies would not differ from those of JFK. All of these facts stand in the way of the “He did it for Castro” thesis.

    Of course, if you’re a writer for the New Yorker or Slate or Mother Jones who’s already decided, in advance, that only very silly people believe in conspiracy theories, you’re probably not going to bother bringing up any of these inconvenient facts.

      1. You mean 60 Minutes, back in the 90s when Diane Sawyer gushed over a Taliban jet pilot who lived in the USA and traveled back and forth to Afghanistan whenever the Northern Alliance needed to be bombed, was still credible?????? (I think they lost their credibility many decades prior, at least around the time of the JFK assassination!)

  17. Arnaldo M. Fernandez

    No Commie would have come to Mexico with a false ID from PCUSA and asked the Cubans for an in-transit visa without previously arranging the visit with the party´s brothers.

    1. Duran pointed out that she was surprised that Oswald did not have the endorsement of the CPUSA. Communists who wanted to go to Cuba usually did.

      But while Oswald might have considered himself a communist (although he claimed to be only a Marxist), he lacked any influence with the CPUSA. He wrote their officials, but their responses were very careful (they might have suspected a provocation).

      1. “They might have suspected a provocation.”

        So did Carlos Bringuier. So did others suspect they were being played in some way. Seems like a common theme with Oswald.

        As one writer recently said, if you don’t accept Oswald working with US intel at some level then the next best explanation is he was running his own one-man intel shop. Which is an even stranger proposition.

        1. I should add that if you’ve ever read William Stuckey’s take on Oswald beyond the WR, you get a much different picture of the alleged assassin.

          Stuckey actually had a couple of beers with Oswald after the radio debate in NO. Stuckey said he looked “relieved” and less anxious following the debate.

          What also struck Stuckey was how carefully Oswald dressed and acted — he didn’t strike him as the beatnik-type commmunists that were in vogue at the time.

          1. What also struck Stuckey was how carefully Oswald dressed and acted — he didn’t strike him as the beatnik-type commmunists that were in vogue at the time.

            Who ever said he was a Beatnik?

          2. JohnR –

            Actually, those sentiments appeared in Stuckey’s WC testimony:

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

            And McAdams, no one said Oswald was a beatnik. Stuckey was just surprised he wasn’t:

            “would like to mention this. I was arrested by his cleancutness. I didn’t expect this at all. I expected a folk-singer type, something of that kind, somebody with a beard and sandals, and he said–I found this fellow, instead I found this fellow who was neat and clean, watched himself pretty well.”

            Other interesting observations:

            “He appeared to be a very logical, intelligent fellow, and the only strange thing about him was his organization. This was, seemed, incongruous to me that a group of this type or he should associate with a group of this type, because he did not seem the type at all, or at least what I have in my mind as the type. I would like to mention this.”

            And…

            “It was almost as if he had–as if he were a young attorney. He seemed to be very well acquainted with the legal terminology dealing with constitutional rights.”

            Where does the ‘nut’ come into this?

          3. Where does the ‘nut’ come into this?

            How many times have you seen reports from friends and neighbors of some mass shooter who said he seemed normal? Quite a few if you have been paying attention.

            Further, “nut” is a very imprecise term. I don’t think Oswald could have been diagnosed with any discrete mental disorder. He was just somebody with extreme (but somewhat idiosyncratic) political views, and a willingness to act on them.

          4. “He was just somebody with extreme (but somewhat idiosyncratic) political views, and a willingness to act on them.”

            So Oswald killed JFK driven by his extreme but idiosyncratic political views.

            If you say Oswald was a political assassin, what was the extreme, idiosyncratic political goal he hoped to achieve?

          5. If you say Oswald was a political assassin, what was the extreme, idiosyncratic political goal he hoped to achieve?

            Perhaps to retaliate for attempts on Castro’s life. Perhaps to just throw a monkey wrench into the mechanism of bourgeois government.

          6. Mcadams: “Perhaps to retaliate for attempts on Castro’s life. Perhaps to just throw a monkey wrench into the mechanism of bourgeois government.”

            I think Oswald was politically aware enough to realize that a Castro supporter and Russian defector killing a POTUS could bring holy hell onto Cuba and possibly WWIII. So don’t see that as a viable political goal. Seems more like pure nihilism.

          7. BTW, this would be a nihilistic act coming from a guy who wept at the birth of his second child just a couple weeks before, according to Marina.

          8. And wasn’t it George Joannides who was supposed to have traveled to NO to set up that interview?

        2. As one writer recently said, if you don’t accept Oswald working with US intel at some level then the next best explanation is he was running his own one-man intel shop.

          Actually, that is more or less what he thought he was doing.

          He had the fake ID cards. He had “microdots” in his address book next to Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.

          He tried to “infiltrate” the anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans. And he set up his own rump chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

          One source (admittedly second hand) said he had a book titled “How to Be a Spy” in his apartment.

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

          1. He “had” two “Osbornes” and two Bowens… Both Bowens were frauds, one Osborne posed as one of the Bowens,
            and the other Osborne ordered FPCC pamphlets printed, but was not the individual, according to printer
            Jones and his staff member, who picked up the completed order.

            Speaking of the jury being out as to whether Oswald was “alone,” Weisberg had some thoughtful observations, long ago when it was still possible to consider Oswald a principal suspect, but unconfirmed
            as a loner.:

            http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Rush%20John/Item%2016.pdf
            Pg. 1, 05-27-82
            …..Weisberg, replying to a long letter from Johann Rush –
            Last time I wrote to Jesse Core he didn’t answer. I don’t know if he is still alive or whether something or somebody turned him off. He was very kind and as helpful as he could be and I liked him. But from Mark Lane to the FBI, there has bee much badmouthing. I suppose it is possible that none of the nasty stuff usually distorted or openly fabricated and untrue reached him. He can give you a description of one ot the men with
            Oswald, other than Steele, and how he was involved. He may remember
            when he saw himself in footage that no longer exists at WDSU. The WDSU footage I have is identical with what Bill Turner got from you. …But when you let Turner have it, he sent it to Garrison and Garrison made a big thing of having me come in for the showing. That is how I know. He als had young Steele, then a Marine Lt. home on leave, in for the showing. Pg 2. ….There is no doubt that the FBI could and did make prints (of the film). They tried to stay away from all they could, in the simple and practical belief that each picture presented a new problem as they tried to avoid all they could avoid. Oswald’s associates is one of the areas of persistent avoidance. For example, in addition to the picture, they found a fingerprint not Oswald’s on literature he alone, supposedly, distributed, when picketed the carrer Wasp oon the Dumaine St. wharf. I’ve never been able to the identification. In my interviews I learned of others with Oswald at the ITM and elsewhere. At the ITM a Cuban who, I think was the New Orleans leader Alpha-66, was one source. He then was chief mechanic for the Fiat place on Baronne. He later moved to Miami. He told me that he happened to be driving past and he saw Oswald in that operation. He said that not only did Oswald have other other associates, they also had an old car that was at, perhaps in past of the driveway of, a parking lot across the street. I have notes on all of this but can’t get at them conveniently. The guy who owned the Fiat agency was J.B. Vols, who also was an artist…

  18. I was watching “Antiques Roadshow” the other night, and one of the assessments was of a JFK archive belonging to a member of Pierre Salinger’s staff at that time. The woman to whom the archive belonged presented some interesting stories, including the fact that she was moved from Air Force 1 to the back-up aircraft, along with the “Texas delegation” to return to Washington D.C.. What was a surprise to me was her description of glee and/or joy amongst the “Texas delegation” on the return trip due to the events in Dallas.

    It was a recent episode of the Roadshow filmed in Spokane Washington should someone wish to view it and confirm that she told this story…..

  19. I mentioned this article in a comment in another thread the other day. My guess is that Mallon has done absolutely no research into the controversy over whether the Warren Report was correct. He just accepts the WR’s conclusions, and has no interest in even looking at what WC skeptics have to say.

    The idea that Oswald was this psychologically disturbed young man with a lot of half-baked ideas inspired by his having read Marx as a teenager, who drifted freely back and forth across the Iron Curtain on various whims and attracted almost no notice from this country’s security agencies is absurd on its face. That simply would not have happened. To paraphrase a line from “The Sopranos,” he’d have had the Feds so far up his posterior he’d have been tasting Brylcreem.

    BTW, as to this notion that Oswald was a self-declared Marxist in his adolescence, is there a single person who has ever stated that Oswald parroted Marxist dogma in his early to mid-teens? The earliest such proclamations seem to have come from his days in the Marines.

    1. “BTW, as to this notion that Oswald was a self-declared Marxist in his adolescence, is there a single person who has ever stated that Oswald parroted Marxist dogma in his early to mid-teens? The earliest such proclamations seem to have come from his days in the Marines.”

      Oswald told a reporter in Moscow that as a teenager in New Orleans, he read Marxist library books. His mother confirmed that in her testimony. Two schoolmates he knew there in 1955 described an incident in which supported communism. William Wulf:

      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36#relPageId=26&tab=page

      Palmer McBride’s affidavit:

      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=740&tab=page

    2. who drifted freely back and forth across the Iron Curtain on various whims and attracted almost no notice from this country’s security agencies is absurd on its face.

      But he did attract attention. Are you unaware that he came to the attention of the FBI, the CIA, the State Department and Naval Intelligence?

    3. Oswald was no Lone Nut. Per his Warren Omission profile he was a Radar Operator for the United States Marine Corps. Semper Fi? He wanted to get away from his domineering mother as his brothers had through the Military. He did. Already influenced by David Ferrie and the Civil Air Patrol Military Intelligence began to train him, IMO. He went to Russia as a dangle/forward observer for the ONI/CIA along with about a dozen others.

      1. BTW, this explains why he was (supposedly) not debriefed when he came back to the USA. He was though, before he left Europe. So I’ve read, but can’t quote at the moment.

    1. Good point. Hampton was a local rather than national figure, and so his assassination is rarely mentioned alongside the Kennedys, MLK, and Malcolm X. Footage from the era reveals an extremely personable and articulate young man who, had he lived, would have very likely been a remarkable (and radical) leader for his community and possibly beyond.

      The Hampton assassination also revealed cooperation and coordination between the FBI and the local police department (Chicago) to sinister ends.

    2. Thank you for connecting us to the Assassination of Fred Hampton and the destruction of the Black panthers by the FBI and other powers. I know that many in the African American community have shared with me how much this hurt. The Huffington Post article is excellent. The powers that be were most afraid of the feeding and education programs the Panthers brought to their communities. I wonder if JFK had lived, would he have appreciated and tried to protect Malcolm X, As he may have wanted to with Patrice Lamumba. Would JFK become more of a partner for MLK ? If JFK had ended the Vietnam war in 1965 then DR King would not have needed to make his profound speech against the war on 4/4/67. Would MLK have survived 4/4/68 ? Would JFK have ‘retired’ Hoover and ended COINTELPRO ? Mr Hampton & Mr Clark could easily still be alive and Millions of our African American citizens might feel like they are part of this country. Like they are citizens. Maybe that’s something that the kind of people who would do banking business with the Nazi’s and bring Nazi’s into our country to be spy’s and more, the kind of people who would murder and torture Brown skinned people in Guatemala, Iran, the Congo or here at home, just wouldn’t stand for….Motive

  20. The Mallon essay gives no consideration to a possibility that must be considered- whether Oswald was set up to take the blame for the assassination (“I’m just a patsy”). Allen Dulles in his 1946 book “Germany’s Underground” asserts that the Nazi leadership organized the Reichstag fire in 1933 and set up a confused young Dutch communist to take the blame, in order to justify Hitler seizing dictatorial control of Germany. Similarly, the Nazis staged a fake “Polish attack” on Germany in September 1939 to justify Germany’s invasion of Poland. A serious consideration of Oswald’s role must include the possibility that his leftist identity was used by forces of the extreme right to discredit the left by setting Oswald up for blame for the assassination.

  21. Excellent post. Morley gets to the heart of the problem I have with the “official story,” which is that important parts of the story require plausible explanations that are never forthcoming.
    According to the official story, Oswald returned to his boarding house after shooting JFK.
    I’ve always found that to be dumbfounding. Oswald had, we are told, just assassinated the most powerful man in the world. He was certain to be the target of a massive manhunt.
    Why didn’t he get on the first bus out of town instead of going back to a known address?
    Or to go back before the crime. Why didn’t the federal government prosecute Oswald after he returned to the U.S. from the Soviet Union?
    This was at the height of the Cold War and Oswald had vowed to give secrets to the Soviets. Yet Oswald was not prosecuted.
    Why?

    1. According to the official story, Oswald returned to his boarding house to pick up his revolver. Being fairly intelligent, he probably never expected to shoot from the 6th floor with a host of lawmen outside and escape.

      He had about $13 on him, not enough to get very far. He’d left the rest of his money, $170, with Marina, along with his wedding ring. When he’d shot at Walker the note he’d left told his wife what to do in case he was killed or “taken prisoner.” IMO, one of those alternatives is probably what he expected to happen on 11/22.

      “Why didn’t the federal government prosecute Oswald after he returned to the U.S. from the Soviet Union? This was at the height of the Cold War and Oswald had vowed to give secrets to the Soviets. Yet Oswald was not prosecuted. Why?”

      The HSCA asked the Justice Department the same question and got this reply:

      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33130&search=%22justice_department%22+%22prosecute+oswald%22#relPageId=56&tab=page

      IOW, they didn’t have the evidence to convict him. Having been a radar operator at Atsugi in itself wouldn’t have given him any information the Soviets didn’t already know — they knew much more about the U-2 than he did.

      There were other defectors who returned to this country and weren’t prosecuted either, so far as I know. Even one who had formally given up his U.S. citizenship was allowed to return as an alien.

      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=84&relPageId=439&search=defector_AND study

      1. “He had about $13 on him, not enough to get very far. He’d left the rest of his money, $170, with Marina…”

        That’s incorrect, Jean. The wallet on the bureau was being used as the family piggy bank to save for an apartment rental. It was always there – so didn’t just leave that sum that day. Priscilla Johnson insinuates that but she’s wrong.

          1. “My point was that he’d left the money there and didn’t take it.”~Jean Davison

            No Jean, your point was to immediately distract from this:

            “But Mallon’s interpretation of Oswald’s actions on November 22 founders on the same sandbar of fact. What’s the evidence that Oswald took aim at Kennedy for love of communism? Oswald’s comments about JFK ranged from mildly critical (JFK was an ordinary politician) to faintly favorable (he favored civil rights for African-Americans which Oswald instinctively supported). How would communistic fervor cause Oswald to kill a man advancing civil rights policies he admired? And if he acted out of love of communism, why did he immediately deny it? Does that make sense?
            No, it doesn’t make sense. It seems quite improbable.”~Morley
            \\][//

          1. The money was always there, John. You can include the ring but the wallet was where they kept the family money so you can use that as proof of his walking away from the marriage.

          2. “That implied that, one way or another, their marriage was over.”~John McAdams

            This is a huge leap in logic. One that goes far beyond the facts at hand.

            The fact that the money was there as an ongoing practice of the Oswalds is very clear.
            The addition of Mr Oswald leaving his wedding ring, is hardly ipso facto evidence of anything as it could be an oversight of a rushed morning, or any other of a penumbra of possibilities.

            And I would add that, there are too many instances of this type of leaping “reasoning” by the WC buffs, to dismiss them as a glaring PATTERN of false argumentation.
            \\][//

      2. The contention that Oswald, at the height of the Cold War, could not possibly have faced any consequences for his prima facie treasonous actions because the government “didn’t have the evidence to convict him” ranks as one of the most ludicrous statements I’ve ever heard about this case.

        Keep in mind that this is only a few years before Hoover’s FBI decided to wage a ruthless campaign of spying and harassment against Dr. Martin Luther King, based on the wholly spurious notion that he was somehow under the control of the Soviets. This is the most hysterically anti-Communist era in American history.

        And we’re supposed to believe that Oswald got away with his little escapade, complete with a friendly loan from the State Department, because he didn’t have “any information the Soviets didn’t already know”?

    2. Why didn’t he get on the first bus out of town instead of going back to a known address?

      Perhaps because he thought he needed his gun. Perhaps because he assumed the bus station would be watched. Some have speculated he was going to catch a bus further out. Nobody really knows.

      1. Nope, nobody does. It is all speculation. Was he headed for Rubyenstiens apartment? Why was a wallet found there and another on him. Where are the pictures of the contents of these wallets at as evidence, including Ferrie’s library card?. He didn’t really have time to kill Tippet. Most likely he was told in the event of any interruption of plans to meet his contact at the Texas Theater. But he didn’t find them there. But the Dallas Police Department did conveniently find him there. Who did they take out the back door, out of the balcony?

        1. Where are the pictures of the contents of these wallets at as evidence, including Ferrie’s library card?.

          He didn’t have Ferrie’s library card. That’s a factoid. Goes back to the notoriously unreliable Jack Martin.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lib-card.txt

          Why was a wallet found there and another on him.

          Jean has dealt with that extensively on this board.

          Who did they take out the back door, out of the balcony?

          Nobody, in either case. Only some teens playing hooky from school were in the balcony. The fellow who claimed to see “Oswald” taken out the back is visible in photos in the front of the theater.

          1. Dr. McAdams, considering that Lena Garner was a defense witness in the Shaw trial, how accurate do you regard this “take”?
            http://www.jfk-online.com/dbgafvisit.html

            From: blackburst@XXXXXX (Blackburst)
            Subject: Garner’s Account of Ferrie Visit
            Date: 29 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
            Message-ID: <20000628232417.12859.00000173@ng-ci1.aol.com>
            ………
            In Garner’s 1969 Shaw trial testimony, she mentioned the visit in passing, but neither prosecution or defense picked up on it.

            vs. the trial transcript of Mrs. Garner’s relevant “testimony”.
            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1306&search=garner_and+ferrie#relPageId=12&tab=page
            …and emphasized by the prosecution.:

            Clay Shaw Trial Transcript, 28 Feb 1969
            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1312&search=garner#relPageId=168&tab=page
            Pg. 165 Mrs. Jesse Garner took the stand for the Defense, the landlady of Lee Harvey Oswald,
            and there crept into the record a very curious thing. David W. Ferrie was over at the apartment of Lee Harvey Oswald one night shortly after the assassination….

          2. Dr. McAdams, considering that Lena Garner was a defense witness in the Shaw trial, how accurate do you regard this “take”?
            http://www.jfk-online.com/dbgafvisit.html

            I pretty much always agree with Blackburst, who is the Ferrie expert.

            If Ferrie did visit the woman, it is because he took seriously the false claim that his library card had been found on Oswald, and was trying to find out how that could have happened.

            But Ferrie’s library card was not found on Oswald.

          3. C’mon, Tom, everyone knows that anyone who has anything to say that might tie Oswald to a conspiracy – including trusted CIA assets, FBI agents and top medical personnel – are crackpots, have faulty memories, are misguided and are otherwise just plain — and always – wrong.

      2. “Perhaps because he thought he needed his gun.”~McAdams

        Like most of the so-called “evidence” presented by the WC buffs, this is again an argument of speculation, not fact.

        ‘Clocks are cleaned’ by substance and data, not supposition, suspicion, conjecture, speculation, inference, theory, nor hypothesis.
        \\][//

        1. “Like most of the so-called “evidence” presented by the WC buffs, this is again an argument of speculation, not fact.

          ‘Clocks are cleaned’ by substance and data, not supposition, suspicion, conjecture, speculation, inference, theory, nor hypothesis.”

          My irony detector just exploded.

          1. “My irony detector just exploded.”~Jean Davison

            Your “irony detector” was defective in the first place, because you stood too near it and it overdosed.
            \\][//

    3. Oswald’s interest in Marxism seems to have come about around the time of his joining the Civil Air Patrol (see Harold Byrd) as a teenager under the influence of “Officer”, CIA asset and Mafia employee, pilot David Ferrie. You can find pictures.

      Yes Oswald went to this rooming hose to get his revolver, obviously.
      Why did he not already have it with him if he shot the President knowing he would be looked for afterward?
      The question is why did he NOW think he needed it?

      1. Or decide he now needed a jacket, possibly deciding his run might take him into the night.

        Perfect planner of presidential assassination has zero plan for escape?

      2. as a teenager under the influence of “Officer”, CIA asset and Mafia employee, pilot David Ferrie.

        Ferrie was not a CIA asset.

        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9532&relPageId=8

        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41374&relPageId=4

        Why did he not already have it with him if he shot the President knowing he would be looked for afterward?

        He probably only learned Thursday about the motorcade. At that point, it was either go to Irving to get the rifle, or to Oak Cliff to get the pistol. But not both.

        But as Jean has suggested, he probably did not expect to get free and clear of the Depository.

          1. Wayne implied that it made no sense that Oswald did not have both his rifle and pistol at the Depository.

            I suggested how this might have happened.

            If buffs claim “this is impossible,” producing a plausible scenario as to how it is possible is a valid form of argument.

        1. It’s also plausible Ferrie was a CIA contract agent, at least by extension. He reportedly flew to/over Cuba on “missions” if memory serves. He also claimed to have been wounded somewhat on one of them (during the Bay of Pigs?). If this is true he flew most likely for people the CIA was sponsoring. If he was hired by possibly the DRE or Alpha 66 the funds ultimately came from the CIA.

          1. It’s also plausible Ferrie was a CIA contract agent, at least by extension.

            What does “by extension” mean?

            Ferrie did work for one of the anti-Castro exile groups, which was funded by the CIA. But somebody in that position would not be paid by the CIA, not directed by the CIA, nor even known by the CIA.

            Thus the documents, links to which I posted.

            His connections with the anti-Castro groups were broken well before 1963. The anti-Castro Cubans did not take kindly to a homosexual, especially one who had sex with underage boys.

            The other stuff you mentioned (flights over Cuba) seem to be conspiracy factoids.

    4. Re: comments by Jean Davison and McAdams — I would focus on what we do know, which is that, for whatever reason, Oswald returned to his boarding house instead of getting on the first bus out of town.
      As is so often the case, we tend to gloss over or not dwell on the many astonishing aspects of the assassination story.
      Here you have a young man who has, according to the WC, just assassinated the president of the U.S., who we were always told was the most powerful and well-protected person in the world.
      If Oswald did do this (a huge if) then he must have known, at that moment, that he would soon be the object of a massive man hunt.
      After Booth shot Lincoln, Booth got on a horse and got out of Washington ASAP. In other words, he left the immediate scene of the crime — and the city where the scene of the crime was located.
      That is not astonishing. It is exactly what I would expect.
      But Oswald did an astonishing thing, not the thing I would expect.
      And the only plausible explanation I’ve seen is the one advanced by Jeff Morley: Oswald returned to his boarding house to get his gun because he had information about the assassination that put his life at risk.
      That makes sense to me. That would be worth the risk.

      1. And the only plausible explanation I’ve seen is the one advanced by Jeff Morley: Oswald returned to his boarding house to get his gun because he had information about the assassination that put his life at risk.

        Or he expected a confrontation with the cops, and was prepared to shoot it out. Which he tried to do.

        1. But he didn’t foresee a confrontation with the cops BEFORE the assassination and bring his revolver to the TSBD? Really?

          1. Again, if he decided Thursday morning to get his rifle (and try to persuade Marina to move back in with him, in which case he might not have wanted his rifle), he was faced with a choice of going to Irving and getting his rifle, or going to Oak Cliff and getting his revolver. But not both.

            As Jean has suggested, he probably did not expect to get away from the Depository free and clear. But once he did, he wanted his revolver.

          2. “As Jean has suggested, he probably did not expect to get away from the Depository free and clear. But once he did, he wanted his revolver.” — John McAdams

            Well, there you go, John. Jean Davison has your answer albeit a bit speculative.

            If Oswald was a spontaneous assassin to be compared with Hinckley and his ilk, I wonder why he didn’t just take his handgun with him on Friday morning, knowing he could step off the curb in front of his place of work the moment the motorcade passed and fire directly into the limousine carrying the president. According to your theory, he had no plan of escape anyway, so why not take a close up shot, rather than traveling to Irving the night before, chancing retrieval of a rifle, chancing the ride with Frazier the following morning, chancing being stopped when he brought a rifle into work, chancing he would be interrupted while crouched in a precarious position on the 6th floor …. why not shoot President Kennedy with that handgun at point blank range – if escape never occurred to him?

        2. I am not sure what role Oswald played in the assassination. I think there was a plot, but whether Oswald was genuinely a conscious part of it, or was indeed a patsy of some sort as he claimed, I remain undecided on. The problem with arguing that Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy imo is that surely he would have taken both the rifle and the handgun with him to work on the 22nd November.

          I think it is most probable that Oswald realised immediately after the assassination that he was in the process of being set up for the murder. That is why I believe he left the TSBD building so soon after the shooting, went back to his apartment, and took his revolver, and quickly left his apartment. I believe Oswald was genuinely rattled and on edge well before this point. I reckon that his actions appear to show somebody afraid that their life was in danger.

          Now people who believe the official story of the assassination argue that Oswald bolted from the book depository because he was the lone gunman, that he was on edge because he was trying to escape the attentions of the police in Dallas, and that he was forced into the theatre after shooting Tippit. But that does not explain the testimony of his housekeeper at his apartment that she heard, and then saw, a police car opposite the house, while Oswald was still there.

          All in all, I reckon it is significant that Oswald’s handgun was at his apartment at the time JFK was murdered. Taking his revolver to his work would make much more sense if Oswald was genuinely the lone assassin.

    5. Is Thomas Mallon related to Neil Mallon?

      Really so much drivel, since again the facts point to Jean Souetre, even considering Brad O’Leary’s claim to have interviewed Souetre.

      Is Brad O’Leary related to Jerry (Jeremiah) O’Leary?

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top