When did Lee Harvey Oswald decide to shoot President Kennedy?

An LP recording of Oswald’s appearance on a New Orleans radio program in August 1963.

I know a lot of readers will reply, “Never.” I hear your cries. Please bear with me.

Since I can’t quite rule out Oswald as a gunman (lone or otherwise) on November 22, 1963, I’m trying to understand what his motivation might have been if he did fire a gun that day.

I ask because I have always found it significant that it is hard to establish Oswald’s whereabouts at the moment of the fatal gunfire. Why wasn’t he outside waving or watching the president of the United States in the flesh? He was very interested in politics. He talked about Kennedy. He told George de Mohrenschildt on occasion that he admired JFK, and other times said he was “just another politician.” He had never seen a president in the flesh. So why did he pass on the chance?

As for you scholars of Billy Lovelady’s wardrobe, I am acquainted with the argument that the person identified as Lovelady in the doorway to the Depository was actually Oswald. In the past I have not found this argument convincing.

My question is directed at the JFK Facts readers who believe that Oswald DID fire a gun at the presidential motorcade on November 22, 1963, whether all by his lonesome or in league with others.

That means you, Jean and John, and even you Photon (if you promise not to be obnoxious): When do you think Oswald decided to do the deed?

I’m also interested in how anti-conspiratorial writers have answered this question. I’m thinking of my good friend Vince Bugliosi (I am too weak to lift his tome from the sagging bookshelf where it slumbers) and my old friend Gerald Posner (I can’t find my well-thumbed copy of “Case Closed.”). Anybody know Norman Mailer what said in “Oswald’s Tale?” Etc Etc.

We’ll post the most thoughtful and informative responses here.

 

 

235 comments

  1. Vanessa says:

    Good morning Jeff

    LHO has an alibi. It’s right there in the WCR and Fritz’s notes.

    Fritz says that Oswald claimed that at the time of the assassination he was having lunch out front with Bill Shelley. Shelley claims he didn’t see Oswald after 12.00pm. Shelley says he was standing on the TSBD steps at the time of the assassination and from Weigman we can see that Shelley leaves the steps immediately after the shots are fired.

    The WCR has Oswald in the sniper’s nest from about 12.00pm onwards. He couldn’t have seen Shelley out front even if he had looked out the window for him as the TSBD doorway is covered over and Shelley was on the top step.

    Mr. BALL – You were standing where?
    Mr. SHELLEY – Just outside the glass doors there.
    Mr. BALL – That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
    Mr. SHELLEY – yes.

    Given the above how could Oswald have known where Shelley was at the time of the assassination unless he was actually with him, as he claimed?

    • Jean Davison says:

      Vanessa,

      Oswald himself said he was inside the building during the shooting:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUTnzfmCJY4

      Fritz explained his ambiguous note: Oswald claimed he was outside with Shelley afterwards, not during. Possibly Oswald saw Shelley from a distance as he exited the building.

      • Vanessa Loney says:

        Hi Jean

        Here is another interpretation of Oswald’s statement about being in that building.

        http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=94e36733467e00f4533dc56b37403694&app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1

        I am still waiting to hear from Prof. McAdams on Fritz’s explanation of his ambiguous notes. I’m going to assume you’re both referring to this bit of “Appendix 11, Reports Relating to the Interrogation of LHO at the DPD, Capt Fritz’s Report, pp 599 – 611”. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Fritz is referring to where Oswald said he was at the time of the shooting. He says that Oswald said he was having lunch on the first floor (ie ground floor).

        Fritz: “I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor. Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in”.

        Fritz is describing 2 separate incidents here ie Firstly, where was Oswald during the shooting (having lunch on the first floor (ie ground floor) and secondly, where was he when the police officer stopped him (on the second floor drinking a coca cola).

        I don’t see anything in Fritz’s Report that refers to Oswald seeing Shelley after the shooting. Have I missed something?

        This is Fritz’s WC testimony:

        “ Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement”. Fritz says Oswald ‘saw’ the excitement. That indicates to me that Oswald was outside at the time otherwise how could he have seen anything? The 2nd floor lunchroom has no external windows so even if Oswald was in the lunchroom he couldn’t have seen the excitement.

        This is Fritz’s notes:

        “…had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front”.

        I don’t see any actual contradictions between Fritz’s notes, his WC testimony and his Appendix 11 Report about where Oswald was at the time of the shooting of the President. Oswald said he was on the first floor, outside, having lunch with employees including Bill Shelley when he saw ‘the excitement’.

        Also Jean, please consider this. If this is not where Oswald told Fritz he was during the assassination then where in the entire WCR does it refer to what Oswald said about his location at the time of the shooting? If he didn’t claim that he was out with Bill Shelley in front then it would appear that Oswald’s entire interrogation on the murder of the President was conducted without anyone asking Oswald where he was during the shooting. And that the DPD then proceeded to charge Oswald with shooting the President even though they had never asked him where he was during the shooting. Does that seem credible to you?

        • Jean Davison says:

          Vanessa,

          QUOTE:
          This is Fritz’s notes:
          “…had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front”.
          UNQUOTE

          No, his notes say:

          “to 1st fl had lunch
          out with Bill Shelley in
          front”

          http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html

          Two separate events. Like Fritz, agent Bookhout reported that Oswald said he had lunch on the 1st floor and “thereafter went outside and stood around with foreman BILL [Shelley] and thereafter went home.”
          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=643

          Your link didn’t work for me, sorry.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            Hope the link works this time. The discussion is at comment #280285.

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354

            Unfortunately Fritz’s notes are written in an unusual way. Instead of writing normally across the page he was written down the page in 2 columns and splits his sentences over a couple of lines. He also does not use commas, full-stops or any other grammar to indicate when a sentence starts and ends. For example, Fritz’s notes say this:

            lft work opinion nothing be
            done that day etc

            This only makes sense if it scans this way:

            “lft work, opinion nothing be done that day etc.”

            A number of Fritz’s sentences in his notes only make sense if they are read this way. Below is the entire piece referring to Oswald’s whereabouts at the time of the assassination.

            “claims 2nd floor coke when
            off came in
            to 1st floor had lunch
            out with Bill Shelley in
            front”

            These lines can be interpreted in a number of ways which I won’t go into here because we don’t actually need to, to work out what Fritz is saying.

            I’m assuming this is your interpretation of these lines below. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

            At the time of the assassination Oswald says he went ‘to 1st floor had lunch’ and then after the assassination was ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’.

            However, this interpretation is not supported by 2 things;

            Firstly, Fritz’s WC testimony says:

            Mr Ball: Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
            Mr Fritz: Yes, sir.
            Mr Ball: What did he say?
            Mr Fritz: Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement..

            I don’t see how Oswald could have ‘seen’ the ‘excitement’ unless he was outside at the time. These comments by Fritz support the interpretation of his notes as meaning that Oswald said he was with other employees out in front of the building at the time of the assassination.

            That’s the first part of Oswald’s alibi. This is the second part:

            According to the WC timeline Oswald was in the 6th floor sniper’s nest from about 11.55am – 12.33pm.

            According to SS Kelley’s Report (Appendix 11) Oswald said he ate his lunch with “Junior” and a “short negro boy”. We know from James Jarman’s and Harold Norman’s WC testimony that James Jarman’s nickname was “Junior”.

            James Jarman and Harold Norman stated in their WC testimony that they ate lunch separately and then met at 12.00 or 12.10pm on the first floor and went out of the building, down the steps and stood on Elm St. Once they heard the President was on his way they re-entered the building at 12.20 – 12.25pm and went up to the 5th floor to get a better view.

            Oswald names these 2 men as being together. According to the WC timeline he had no opportunity to see these 2 men together at all from about 11.55am onwards because he was on the 6th floor.

            So how does Oswald know that Junior Jarman and Harold Norman were together at all? And how does Oswald know that Shelley was out in front?

            The WC scenario does not give Oswald an opportunity to see any of these men at all after 12.00pm.

            Jarman, Norman and Shelley all placed themselves in the vicinity of the TSBD front steps either minutes before the assassination or actually at the time of the assassination.

            The only way Oswald could have known all of these facts was if:

            1) he was on the first floor looking out the TSBD through the glass doors minutes from the assassination; or

            2) he was outside on the TSBD steps themselves at the time of the assassination.

            Neither of these alternatives gives him an opportunity to be the TSBD 6th floor gunman.

            http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#presence

            http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/wr_a11_reportsdpd.pdf

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/norman.htm

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Jean

            According to Bill Shelley’s WC testimony, he and Billy Lovelady left the steps of the TSBD IMMEDIATELY after the shooting.

            If Fritz’s notes are correct, and Oswald was out in front with Bill Shelley, he could not have been on the 2nd floor drinking a Coca-Cola, as Shelley and Lovelady testified to seeing Baker and Truly entering the TSBD as they were leaving the front entrance, heading down Elm St.

            Fritz wrote his notes a good week after the interview. While he has tried very hard to make them appear as if he was jotting them down during the interrogation they are, in fact, all done from memory.

            As I said, the timing is impossible. Oswald cannot be out in front with Shelley AND on the 2nd floor drinking a oke. Someone is lying, and my first candidate is Fritz.

          • Jean Davison says:

            I don’t see a comment #280285 at your link, Vanessa.

            Oswald didn’t have to see Norman and Jarman to know they were together. Norman was at the open window directly beneath him and Jarman was with him. Oswald may’ve recognized their voices.

            The bottom line is that Oswald himself said he was inside the building when the president was shot.

          • Jean Davison says:

            When Shelley and Lovelady left the steps they first went to the traffic island directly across from the TSBD entrance to talk to Gloria Calvary, who ran up crying after seeing JFK get shot. They were still there when they saw Baker going inside. It’s not clear exactly how many minutes they stayed there before walking down to the railroad yards, probably not very long, but Oswald didn’t loiter in the Depository, either.

            Fritz’s notes don’t say that Oswald claimed to be out front with Shelley *during the shooting*. So far as I know there’s no record that anybody said that, not even Oswald.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean – apologies, I don’t seem to be having much luck with my links. The way I find it is to go to that CTKA link I mentioned then search in the box on the top right hand side for ‘work in that building’. This will bring up a few pages of comments. If you scroll down around about 11 comment boxes you will find Sean Murphy’s comment #280825.

            Okay Jean, but Oswald doesn’t even seem to know their names so it would be extremely unlikely he would have recognised their voices after only 6 weeks of working with them. Plus he describes Norman as a ‘short negro boy’ how does he work out his height from hearing his voice? That’s a visual description for someone he’s seen.

            By their own testimony Jarman and Norman don’t get to the 5th floor until 12.20 – 12.25pm. That gives Oswald about 5 or 10 minutes to identify their voices before shooting the President. Seems a bit odd to be focussed on that with everything else that would have been on his mind, if he’d be the shooter.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            Actually we can see in the Weigman film that Shelley and Lovelady leave the TSBD steps immediately after the shooting and before Baker even reaches them and walk down the street to the railroad yards. They walk right past the traffic island without stopping at all.

            See CTKA link as before, then search “Shelley” in box. You should get 8 pages of comments. The film of Shelley and Lovelady walking down the street and discussion is on page 4 around comment #278805.

            In the official version Oswald hasn’t even got to the 2nd floor lunch room yet to meet Baker. So even if Oswald did go straight onto Elm St, after that, Shelley and Lovelady would already have been at the railroad yards and he wouldn’t have been able to see them.

            Jean, that is the only part of Fritz’s notes that refer to where Oswald was during the assassination. You have 2 options either Oswald said he was on the 1st floor having lunch or he was outside with Bill Shelley (or, my preferred option – he was on the 1st floor having lunch out front with Bill Shelley).

            Fritz WC testimony confirms that this is when he asked Oswald where he was during the assassination (as quoted previously).

            If you are saying that these 2 sentences don’t refer to Oswald’s location at the time of the assassination then it would appear that Fritz has not asked Oswald where he was when the President was shot. Do you find that credible?

    • Vanessa,

      the most solid proof that Oswald could not have been on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting comes from a witness employed in the TSBD who’s testimony was altered by the WC as it did not fit to their conclusions about Oswald’s presence on the 6th floor. Office Survey Representative and assassination witness Victoria Adams stood, besides Miss Styles, behind Dorothy Garner at the window in the 4th floor of the TSBD at the time the parade passed by. Mrs. Garner, interviewed by the FBI on March 20, 1964, said she felt the shots originated from somewhere west of the building. Nothing else appears on the public record regarding these two women. Neither was questioned by the Warren Commission and their names do not appear anywhere within the 888 pages of the Warren Report. This is particularly disturbing when one considers the significance and subsequent controversy surrounding what fellow employee Victoria Adams did following the shooting. Miss Adams told authorities she and Sandra Styles left the fourth-floor window moments later and descended the back stairs to the first floor. The timing of their actions was crucial. If Miss Adams was accurate (which was confirmed by Dorothy Garner in an interview with Barry Ernest, author of “The Girls on the Stairs” in 2009) the pair had been on those stairs at the same time Lee Oswald was as he raced down them from the sixth floor sniper’s lair. Oswald was on his way to a second-floor lunchroom encounter with Dallas policeman Marrion Baker and Depository manager Roy Truly, who had come up those same stairs from the first floor. Yet Miss Adams had seen and heard no one. The dilemma was ignored by the Warren Commission for it never included Miss Adams in any of the time tests conducted regarding Oswald’s escape. She was the only person excluded. Nor did it question any of the three other women who were with her at the window. It simply concluded that Oswald was on the stairs at that time and if Miss Adams did not see or hear him, then she was wrong. She must have come down the stairs later than she thought, the Report surmised, after Oswald had passed the fourth floor going down, after the lunchroom encounter had occurred, and after Baker and Truly had continued beyond the fourth floor going up to the roof, Baker’s original destination. The following scenarios in confunction with Oswalds running downstairs are to discuss:
      A. Oswald comes down after Adams and Styles go down ? No. Garner would have seen him since she was there when Adams and Styles entered the stairs.
      B. Oswald came down when Adams and Styles were on the stairs ? No. Adams and Styles would have heard him or Garner would have seen him. Even the Warren Report says that.
      C. Oswald comes down before Adams and Styles ? This doesn’t seem likely either based on what he was supposed to do on the sixth floor (waiting at the window some seconds after the last shot, as witnesses said, cross the sixth floor, hide his rifle) before starting down. Adams was on the stairs within 15-30 seconds, down them in one minute or so. And the time tests done with the guy pretending to be Oswald shows his speed and how far he had to go. Unless he came down so fast he beat everyone with plenty of time to spare, which makes you wonder why he would hang around in the lunchroom waiting for the cops to arrive instead of just leaving out the front or rear door.
      Adams was not included in the reconstruction tests and Styles and Garner weren’t questioned either. Almost like someone didn’t want to confirm it. What’s important is that Garner saw Baker and Truly after Adams and Styles went down meaning the lunchroom meeting already took place, and Garner didn’t see Oswald on the stairs at all.

      • Vanessa Loney says:

        Hi there Achim – apologies I’ve only just seen your post :).

        Thanks for your comments. You’ve clearly done a lot more research and reading on the stairs issue than I have. I bow to your superior knowledge on this issue. Can I ask if you have an opinion on the Sean Murphy Prayerman issue?

      • Jean Davison says:

        Achim,

        “Oswald was on his way to a second-floor lunchroom encounter with Dallas policeman Marrion Baker and Depository manager Roy Truly, who had come up those same stairs from the first floor. Yet Miss Adams had seen and heard no one.”

        That’s one reason the WC concluded that she wasn’t on the stairs when Oswald was. She should’ve run into Truly/Baker on their way up just as he did, but she didn’t see or hear them.

        https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=73578

        • David Regan says:

          Jean, who is to say Vickie Adams had not already descended from the 4th floor and out the building by that time?

          The WC never called Sandra Styles, who accompanied Vickie Adams down the stairs, to testify. Nor did they call Elsie Dorman or Dorothy Garner who were also watching the motorcade from the fourth floor and could have verified that Adams and Styles left “immediately” after the third shot.

          • leslie sharp says:

            David, this should be an interesting discussion, Sandra Styles redux. Archives of jfkfacts should reveal the lengthy debate with Jean Davison over Styles’ significance in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. I wonder if the arguments will hold up under renewed scrutiny.

          • David Regan says:

            Thanks Leslie, I’m a relative newcomer to the site so will look back at previous threads.

            I haven’t seen discussion on the mysterious Oswald package found at Irving Post Office on 12/4/63. Perhaps we should get that going?

          • Jean Davison says:

            The WC theory you’re trying to refute is that Oswald was coming down the stairs **at the same time** Truly and Baker were coming up. Nothing Styles or any other witness might say can change that fact.

            If Adams didn’t see or hear Truly and Baker coming up the stairs, then she wasn’t on the stairs at the same time the WC claims Oswald was coming down the stairs. If you can explain it some other way, go ahead.

          • the WC didn’t want any verifications going against what they were supposed to “conclude”. That’s why they didn’t call Styles or Dorman. We must recall that Rankin told the WC members “We are here to close doors, not open new ones”..which I find to be a stupid thing to tell a group of people who are supposed to investigate to find the truth,

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jean, who is to say Vickie Adams had not already descended from the 4th floor and out the building by that time.”

            Then her testimony is irrelevant, David, because if she was already outside when Truly and Baker ran upstairs, she wasn’t on the stairs at the same time Oswald was in the WC reconstruction (which is what her testimony supposedly refutes).

            In the WC version Oswald is on the stairs between the 4th and 2nd floors at about the same time as B&T are near the bottom of the stairwell yelling for the elevator or running up to the 2nd floor, where their paths cross. So where was Adams while all this is going on? Already outside?

            Can any of the other Adams fans here explain why she didn’t see or hear Baker and Truly?

          • David Regan says:

            Why on earth would anyone put faith in a flawed WC reenactment? IMO, Oswald was never even on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting – as per Ochus V. Campbell and Mrs. Robert Reid. (and others)
            http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0496-001.gif
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=16482

        • Jean, the fact remains that Oswald was on his way to a second-floor lunchroom encounter with Dallas policeman Marrion Baker and Depository manager Roy Truly, who had come up those same stairs from the first floor.
          Oswald was described as calm and collected, not as if he had just sprinted down a couple flight of stairs.
          This is all in the official record, I have read it myself in the WC Report.
          As far as I am concerned this is a firm alibi that Oswald simply could not have been at the “snipers nest” when the shots were said to have been fired.
          \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            The WC reenactments showed that the Oswald stand-in didn’t have to “sprint” and wasn’t winded:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=176

            Do you folks think it was just a coincidence that Oswald was right about where the “real killer” would’ve been if he’d come down the stairs immediately after the shooting? He “just happened” to be in that particular area at that particular time?

          • John R says:

            No, Jean, I don’t find it coincidental at all. I find it rather commonsensical that Oswald was found in the lunch room of the building where he worked during the lunch hour.

          • Jean, yes the WC “reenactments”, I am aware of several and all have been fudged to support the WC itself (surprise!)

            This issue of where Oswald was just moments after the shooting. He was eating lunch in the lunchroom of the TBDB and had gone to get a Coke in a small vestibule just off the lunchroom when encountered by Truly the manager of TBDB, and officer Baker – the first policeman to enter the building. This gives a firm alibi to Oswald not having been on the 6th floor where the ‘snipers nest’ is located.
            I remember discussing this with Jim Marrs years ago, both of us agreeing that this point alone proves Oswald’s innocence.

            Reconstructing this scene as per testimonies; Baker saw someone in the vestibule through the small glass window in the door from the hallway. Truly testifies that if anyone had been in the hallway moments before, he would have seen him go through that door. The only alternative route to the vestibule is from the lunchroom. up a short flight of steps. Oswald was therefore eating in the lunchroom as per his testimony, and had gone to fetch a Coke for the meal he was having. The lunchroom is on the second floor. The snipers nest is on the sixth. For Oswald to have come down four flights of stairs from the snipers nest is an impossible feat given the timeline of Bakers entry into the building. The “nest” was enclosed and had to be squirmed out of, another round had been chambered in the rifle, it was then hidden among boxes heavy with books, that he would have to move to get through to the spot the rifle was hidden, he would have had to then replaced the heavy boxes before finally exiting and taking the stairs down. This is simply an impossible timeline, one that was juked by the WC to try to make it fit the official narrative.

            If you look closely into this the WC played hanky panky on two aspects of the time involved. How quickly Baker was able to get to the TBDB and how quickly Truly and he got up the stairs.
            See: http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/lunchroom_encounter.htm
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Styles’ signed affidavit of 3/19/64 corroborates Vickie Adam’s account. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1317&relPageId=706

            Truly and Baker encounter Oswald in the second floor lunch room after ascending one flight of stairs. Witnesses see Baker run (not “walking” and “trotting”) into the TSBD within seconds of the final shot.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Thanks for answering my question, John R.

          • John R says:

            You’re very welcome, Jean. I’m from Texas, where it’s considered good manners to respond to a direct question with a direct answer. If I may, I have one for you. Is there anything about any of the evidence against Oswald that gives you pause?

  2. Jean Davison says:

    Oswald couldn’t have made the specific plans to shoot JFK until after the motorcade route was announced on November 19, when the opportunity fell into his lap. He must have decided sometime between then and Thursday morning (21st) when he asked Frazier for a ride to Irving where his rifle was kept.

    One sign that it was a last-minute decision, imo, is that after taking some driving lessons from Ruth he went to the DMV for the second time on 11/16 to apply for a learner’s permit. I doubt that anyone planning a President’s assassination could realistically expect to ever drive a car again, with or without a license.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Hi Jean

      When did Oswald make the paper bag?

      • David Regan says:

        Excellent question, Bob. Perhaps Jean can provide us with thoughts on nagging questions on this matter:

        Where did this bag come from? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag1.jpg

        I mean, where did Oswald supposedly get it?

        Did he bring it with him the night before? In that case, how did Frazier fail to notice it? Are you going to say that Oswald put that bag in Frazier’s car on Thursday afternoon, and Frazier didn’t notice it?

        And if you assume that, then you have to assume that Oswald brought the bag with him to work on Thursday morning. So, how come nobody at the TSBD noticed it? He walked into the building with that big and unusual bag and nobody noticed it?

        Or, do you presume that Oswald found the bag at Mrs. Paine’s house and just helped himself to it? But, that is a big presumption. Wouldn’t Mrs. Paine know if she had a bag like that or not at her house? Did anyone ask her? And since she is still alive, why doesn’t someone ask her today?

        But, how likely is it that she had a bag like that at her house? Do you have a bag like that at your house?

        How come the bag is much longer than the bag that Frazier described? Frazier was, and is, adamant that it wasn’t that big.

        Reportedly, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket at Mrs. Paine’s house. But, nobody ever said it was disassembled. So, when did Oswald disassemble it, and how could no one realize he was doing it? Didn’t they hear him? Wasn’t he strangely missing? Couldn’t they hear him in the garage fiddling with the rifle and looking for a bag? Or, do you think he got up in the middle of the night and did it? But, it was a small house, and he was sleeping with his wife. Wouldn’t they have heard him then?

        Rifles don’t come in bags. They don’t usually come in anything, but if they came in something, it’s a case and not a paper bag. So, that bag definitely wasn’t associated with that rifle. So, where did Oswald get that bag? And since the rifle was just wrapped in a blanket at Mrs. Paine’s house, there’s no reason to think it came with anything. It was just a rifle. It was moved around as an object- a rifle- and that’s it. There is no reason to think there was any bag involved.

        So, if you want to say that it was Oswald’s bag, where did he get it? Or, if you want to say that it was Mrs. Paine’s bag, where did she get it?

        But, before that old woman passes, we better get to her and find out if she is claiming that it was her bag. Does anyone know how we can reach Ruth Paine?

        • Jean Davison says:

          David,

          Ever heard of folding up a large piece of paper?
          The paper in the bag matched the TSBD wrapping paper. The bag was c. 8″ wide and has visible fold lines c. 6″ apart. Six x eight is about the size of a sudoku puzzle magazine, which can be rolled up and carried in a jacket pocket.

          Ruth testified that she owned no such paper and that she could tell the next day that Oswald had been in the garage because he’d left the light on. The police found out Oswald had taken a bag to work when Frazier’s sister reported it on 11/22. She initially described it to the FBI as c. 36″ long.

          “But, before that old woman passes, we better get to her and find out if she is claiming that it was her bag. Does anyone know how we can reach Ruth Paine?”

          By all means, let’s keep hounding these witnesses until they die. How dare they implicate Oswald!

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, could you cup a 36″ package with your hand and hold the end under your armpit?, which is how Buell Frazier testified Oswald carried the package into the TSBD. Does the bag in the photo above look short enough to carry in such a way?

            Regardless, Buell Wesley Frazier had stated that Oswald had carried a paper bag about 27 inches (69 cm) long, a length consistent with Frazier’s description of Oswald holding one end of the package cupped in his right hand and the other tucked under his armpit (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.409 and Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.239–43).

            •Linnie Mae Randle, Frazier’s sister, also claimed to have seen Oswald holding a bag about 27 inches long (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.408 and Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.248–50).

            Did a single witness at the TSBD see Oswald carry this unusally long bag into the building or bring it up to the 6th floor and stash it all morning in a place where no one would see it? Did anyone see Oswald hand assembling this bag with paper and tape?

            Who exactly found the paper bag?

            Four officers did not notice a bag on the sixth floor:

            •Gerald Hill stated that “the only sack that I saw” was one that was later shown to have contained a TSBD employee’s lunch (ibid., p.65; he describes his discovery of the lunch bag on p.46).

            •Elmer Boyd also saw the lunch bag, and stated that “I don’t believe I did” see any brown wrapping paper near the window (ibid., p.122).

            •Roger Craig stated that “I don’t remember seeing” a paper bag on the floor (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.268).

            •Luke Mooney, who appears to have been the first officer to examine the south–east corner of the sixth floor, “didn’t see anything over in the corner” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.286).

            J.B. Hicks, of the Dallas police crime laboratory, did not remember a paper bag:

            Mr Ball:Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?
            Mr Hicks:Paper bag?
            Mr Ball:Paper bag.
            Mr Hicks :No,sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.
            Mr Ball:Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?
            Mr Hicks:No, sir; I don’t believe I did. I don’t recall it.
            (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.289)

            More importantly, the paper bag is not present in any of the photographs made by the police of the area around the south–east window. The Warren Commission helpfully published one such photograph, Commission Exhibit 1302, with a dotted outline to indicate the supposed location of the bag.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, by all means let us all pretend that Ruth Avery Hyde Paine and her husband Michael – a descendant of the Cabot Forbes family – did not have personal histories worth considering. I’ve done my own research for my own reasons, but this site does a good job of pulling the information together objectively: http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/

            How you are given such a wide berth to write off the Paines’ complex connections to the world of US/British intelligence and the industrial complex not to mention their relationship with George de Mohrenschildt is one of the greater mysteries of this site. Why so few here challenge you on these issues is disturbing.

            Your presumption is that Oswald read about the motorcade in the newspaper on the 19th, and said to himself, ‘I think I’ll assassinate the leader of the free world but I’ll wait until he passes in front of the building where I’m employed, and I’ll just take my chances that everything will fall into place; the parade won’t be cancelled for weather, the bubble top will be down, the brother of the neighbor of the woman who owns the house where my wife has been living will have a car that can be guaranteed not to have any mechanical problems en route to work on the 22nd, and the rifle I have shoved under my arm pit won’t be recognized while I walk into work and ascend to the 5th floor where I will hide it without anyone at work asking, “hey, Lee, what’s that rifle ya got there?”

            Where do we go from there, Jean?

          • Pat Speer says:

            The bag in the archives is about 38 inches long and 8 1/2 inches wide–when doubled over. It actually has a few inches overlap on the side and on top. So the shipping paper used to make it would have to have been about 40 by 20, or 800 square inches of thick crinkly paper. There is no way you could roll that much paper up and hide it in a pocket, Jean!

            I’ve talked to Buell Frazier about this, for that matter, and have explained to him that the official story holds not only that Oswald took the rifle in the bag to work on the 22nd, but that Oswald took the paper bag home in Frazier’s car on the 21st. He nodded his head when I said that in my experience shipping paper is crinkly and noisy when it’s folded up and that it would be really difficult for Oswald to smuggle the bag in his clothes without anyone’s noticing. And Frazier looked at me as if I’d told him his mom was an alien, and said “THAT did not happen.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Have you tried it, Pat? I have, and did it again just now with a 20×40″ piece of “crinkly” wrapping paper. It’s bulky but it’s zipped up in a pocket of my windbreaker right now, making not one sound. Try it yourself.

            Anybody want to explain how Oswald’s prints got on this bag?

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69125

          • David Regan says:

            Linnie Mae Randle saw Oswald before he began his journey to work. She described him gripping the top of the paper bag in his right hand as the bottom of the bag “almost touched the ground” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, p.248). Buell Wesley Frazier described Oswald about half an hour later, holding the bag “cupped in his [right] hand”, with the top of the bag under his armpit (ibid., p.239). It would be reasonable to suppose that the weight of a rifle may have caused at least Oswald’s right fingerprints and right palm print to become attached to one or both ends of the package.

            Lieutenant Day used fingerprint powder on the bag, but found “no legible prints” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.267). Robert Studebaker also failed to identify any worthwhile prints:

            Mr Ball :Did you lift any prints?Mr Studebaker :There wasn’t but just smudges on it — is all it was. There was one little ole piece of a print and I’m sure I put a piece of tape on it to preserve it … just a partial print.Mr Ball :The print of a finger or palm or what?Mr Studebaker :You couldn’t tell, it was so small.
            (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.144)

            The rifle was sent to the FBI laboratory, where Sebastian Latona found that “there was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.3). Latona applied silver nitrate to the bag, and discovered two partial prints that were matched to records of Oswald’s prints (ibid., p.6):
            •a part of a right palm print (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.286 [Commission Exhibit 632]);
            •and a part of a left index fingerprint (ibid., p.287 [Commission Exhibit 633]).

            Although the bag, or at least the paper that was used to make the bag, appears to have come into contact with Oswald’s hands at some point, the fingerprint and palm print evidence was insufficient to prove that Oswald had carried the bag in the manner described by Randle and Frazier, or that he had assembled the bag by hand.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Thanks for illustrating my point so well, Leslie. There’s no actual evidence against the Paines, only suspicion, innuendo, and “links” to other people against whom there is no evidence, only suspicion, innuendo, and “links” to still other people against whom there’s no evidence, and so on.

            Using this method, almost anyone might eventually be “connected,” even you. If you have any legitimate evidence against the Paines or anyone else, I’d like to see it.

            If the motorcade had been canceled, Oswald would’ve missed the opportunity, but so what? He could’ve put the rifle back it its bag (which was still intact) and tell Frazier he’d decided to return to Irving for the weekend, after all. Who knows, maybe he left the bag in one piece instead of ripping it open for that very reason.

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, have you tried measuring from your armpit down to your cupped hand? I just did and came not even close to 36-38″ – at 24″ only. This test could easily have been shown at trial by Oswald’s defense attorney. So, unless Oswald walked around with his hands hanging down well below his knees, he did not carry this huge bag into the TSBD: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag1.jpg

            Fact 1: There is no photographic evidence to show this long paper bag at the snipers nest.

            Fact 2: It was never established who found the paper bag at the snipers nest.

            Fact 3: Forensic investigation of the paper bag indicated no well-oiled rifle (as Oswald’s was) had been placed in the paper bag.

            Fact 4: Only two people claim they saw Oswald with a paper bag that morning (and it was too small to conceal a rifle), while others claimed he wasn’t carrying any bag.

          • David Regan says:

            What about the other mysterious bag linked to Oswald? Very odd! Was this an attempt to frame Oswald? On December 4, 1963, a postal worker noticed a parcel addressed to Lee Oswald in the dead-letter section of the Irving Post Office. The package was addressed to Lee Oswald at 601 W. Nassaus Street in Dallas, a non-existent address. According to the FBI it contained ‘a brown paper bag made of fairly heavy brown paper which was open at both ends and was approximately 18″ in length.

            The Mysterious Package: http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2010/01/mysterious-package.html?spref=tw

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            I agree that Oswald carried a bag cupped in his right hand because his right palm print was found on the bottom of the bag in evidence:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=73559

            How would you explain that or the photos showing a lawman carrying a long bag out of the TSBD that afternoon? (At that point the cops hadn’t yet learned that Oswald had brought a bag to work.) Has any CT ever explained where this bag came from?

            “Did a single witness at the TSBD see Oswald carry this unusually long bag into the building….?”

            Frazier saw him carrying a bag and go into the building, so why should we assume that a bag evaporated when he walked through the door?

            This photo taken from the back entrance shows the wrapping table where Dougherty was sitting (wooden structure with an arch in the background):

            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/28/Photo_wcd496_0011.jpg

            Oswald could have taken the freight elevator on the right straight up to the 6th floor or walked around the corner to the stairs:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/06/Photo_wcd496_0012.jpg

            Where could he have hidden a brown paper package on the 6th floor? Just about anywhere:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/78/Photo_wcd81-1_0101.jpg

            He didn’t even have to wait for the floor-laying crew to break for lunch to assemble his weapon. They were working in the foreground here on the opposite side of the building:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10484&relPageId=115

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, you seem to not want to acknowledge the burden of proof would be on your camp to show Oswald brought the bag in question with him on Nov 22nd. So far I’m just hearing a lot of “Oswald could have done this..or that”. Assumptions are not proof and your side fails miserably in proving Oswald was tied to this bag beyond reasonable doubt.

            It is obvious a 36″ package could not be carried in the manner you decribe, nor would Frazier or his sister identify this package as the one they saw Oswald carrying.

            You have no other witness seing Oswald bring the bag inside the building, nor have you proven Oswald made this bag by hand in the TSBD of that it ever contained the rifle.

            You have not proven who in the DPD found the bag or determined it’s exact location; no photo exists showing the bag in the crime scene, other than a ludicrous WC Exhibit 1302 with a drawn in of “approximate location of wrapped paper bag” – that’s hardly sold legal evidence there, Jean.

            As for your prints on the bag; A Dallas Police Department Case Report filed on November 22nd claimed that Lieutenant J. C. Day lifted a print from the “paper rifle was wrapped in” but the fingerprint was not photographed, FBI fingerprint expert, Sebastian F. Latona, did not see that fingerprint when he examined the bag the next morning, and Day himself testified to the Warren Commission that “no legible prints were found with the powder”.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1140&relPageId=267
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13211
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13475

            The FBI examined wrapping paper from Oswald’s previous employers, Jaggers-Childs-Stovall and William B. Riley Co. Jaggers-Childs-Stovall used the exact same brand and type of wrapping paper as the School Book Depository. FBI special agent James Cadigan tested samples from each place and determined that they were different from Commission Exhibit 142.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11293&relPageId=189
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13306

            And what do you make of this other mystery package sent to Oswald at a phony address containing a different bag measuring 18″? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YwYqFBoL3ZA/S0nxNLG3A0I/AAAAAAAAAI8/Urm8NzsEjkg/s1600-h/PaperBagPackage.jpg

          • David Regan says:

            FBI special agent James Cadigan testified that, “There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13305

            A November 30th FBI report concluded that the inside surface of the paper bag “did not disclose markings identifiable with the rifle” recovered from the Texas School Book Depository.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=171

            FBI special agent James Cadigan examined the sack and failed to mention finding any oil or grease stains inside the bag despite the fact that J. Edgar Hoover had determined that the rifle was in a “well-oiled condition”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13297
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=146562

            The paper used to construct the sack was sturdy sixty pound paper used by the Texas School Book Depository but Wesley Frazier told the FBI that the paper bag he saw was a cheap, crinkly thin paper such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent stores.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10408&relPageId=299
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10408&relPageId=302

            When shown the original sack and the replica sack, Ruth Paine could not recall having seen Oswald in possession of them or of any similar sack or materials nor did she recall ever having seen those materials in her home.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10408&relPageId=300

            When asked by the Warren Commission if she had ever seen “a paper bag or a cover for the rifle at the Paine’s residence or garage”, Marina Oswald said she had not and also said she had never seen him with a bag at any time.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=15085

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch13.htm

            “The need to restructure the intelligence community grows out of six problems that have become apparent before and after 9/11:

            >Structural barriers to performing joint intelligence work. National intelligence is still organized around the collection disciplines of the home agencies, not the joint mission. The importance of INTEGRATED – ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS cannot be overstated. Without it, it is not possible to “CONNECT THE DOTS.” NO ONE COMPONENT holds all the relevant information.

            13.3 UNITY OF EFFORT IN SHARING INFORMATION
            Information Sharing:
            We have already stressed the importance of intelligence analysis that can draw on all relevant sources of information. THE BIGGEST IMPEDIMENT to all-source analysis-TO A GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF CONNECTING THE DOTS -is the human or systemic RESISTANCE TO SHARING INFORMATION.

            (emphasis mine.)

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            But you didn’t answer my question (and no one else has). Where did this bag come from and how did Oswald’s prints get on the bottom of it, if the WC’s explanation isn’t correct?

            http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184770/

            This is the bag in evidence, not the “shorter” one Frazier and his sister described.

            Since I’m an old-timer I’ve seen the points you raised answered time and again. For instance, fingerprint powder doesn’t work well on paper. The FBI customarily used chemicals to develop them.

            Meanwhile the CT side has never given a plausible alternative explanation for the evidence against Oswald. IMO, there isn’t one.

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, I believe the onus is on the prosecution to prove where the paper bag came from, seeing as it is your evidence exhibit. And I haven’t heard your answers to the points raised earlier in this thread.

            Aside from Latona’s palm and finger print at the bottom of the bag, what proof, in your opinion, could have been presented at trial, to show the following:

            * that Oswald hand-made the paper sack

            * the sack was used to carry the rifle

            * the sack was found on the sixth floor

            IMO, the fingerprint and palm print evidence was insufficient to prove that Oswald had carried the bag in the manner described by Randle and Frazier, or that he had assembled the bag by hand.

          • John R says:

            Could we have some more context on the mystery package? I was unaware of it’s existence. Why no zip code?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, your link proves nothing. The ‘palm print’ your point is clearly circled on exhibit 631 by Latona, showing the heel of the palm. Are you going to prove Oswald held upright a 36″ paper bag with rifle, balancing on the heel of his palm without leaving more prints?

            The WC would never have proven his link to this bag beyone a reasonable doubt, and you have provided nothing to convince me otherwise.

            Care to explain the discrepancies in these FBI reports? An FBI document from November 29th regarding the source of the paper Oswald allegedly used to construct the bag states that paper samples obtained from the Depository shipping area on November 22nd were “found to have the same observable characteristics” as the brown paper bag recovered from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest. A second, nearly identical, version of the same report says that the paper samples were “found not to be identical”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=328890
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/67/Pict_essay_speerproof_jackwhite.jpg

            The paper from which the bag was made was purported to match the paper roll in use in the depository on November 22nd and the rolls lasted just a few days, which means that the bag must have been made within a few days of the assassination. The tape used to construct the bag was automatically moistened as it was pulled from the machine and that machine left distinct markings which FBI agent James Cadigan identified as being on the paper bag which indicates that the paper bag was made on the premises of the Texas School Book Depository. However, Oswald had no responsibilities that would bring him near the shipping table where the paper and tape were stored and nobody ever testified to having seen Oswald take paper or tape from the shipping table. Shipping clerk Troy Eugene West told the Warren Commission that Oswald was never around the shipping department, never helped wrap the mail, and never borrowed or used any wrapping paper. Furthermore, West testified that he worked every day, usually got to work a little early, and kept and ate his lunch at his desk.
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0050b.htm
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0185b.htm

            According to an FBI report on November 29th, Lt Carl Day claimed that Roy Truly was a witness to his finding the bag and that “no one else viewed it” but Truly told the Warren Commission that he didn’t remember being there when things were found in the southeast corner.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=132
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=39&relPageId=239

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, you have yet to respond to the issue of dot connecting, a method you persistently attack as amateur. According to the document published by the US Government, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch13.htt
            the method is fundamental to intelligence work. The investigation of the assassination is “intelligence work,” looking beyond the obvious, considering new facts and applying them responsibly and when applicable assimilating them into the debate. However, I notice that when confronted with new information, you frequently assert “well, he must have thought”, or “she must have misremembered,” or “after all they (WC members) were only human.”

            From the document: The biggest impediment to all-source analysis-to a greater likelihood of connecting the dots -is the human or systemic resistance to sharing information.

            Might we insert “refusal to consider information” for “resistance to sharing information?”

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            You really should read your links more carefully because you’re unintentionally showing how your conspiracy sources mislead by quoting out of context.

            Cadigan said that the bag had no marks that could be identified as having come specifically from a rifle, but when asked if that meant the M-C hadn’t been inside it, he said no. It just meant he couldn’t say that any particular mark inside the bag had been caused by a rifle.

            JEH didn’t say “the rifle was in a well-oiled condition,” as countless conspiracy books have claimed. He said the “firing pin and spring” were well-oiled. These wouldn’t have come in contact with the bag.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=146562

            In another post you say that shipping clerk West testified that Oswald “never borrowed or used any wrapping paper.”
            This is what he said in your link:

            BELIN. Do you know whether he ever borrowed or used any wrapping paper for himself?
            WEST. No, sir, I don’t.
            BELIN. You don’t know?
            WEST. No, I don’t.

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0185b.htm

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, it’s the typical twisting of words by the WC questioning with West. My post on this stated ‘West told the WC that Oswald was never around the shipping department, never helped wrap the mail, and never borrowed or used any wrapping paper’, which West or no one else observed Oswald ever doing.

            Dress it up anyway you like Jean, but the bottom line is there was no witness who saw Oswald making the bag, nor can you prove the MC was ever in the bag.

            Is it your opinion he was able to cup a 36″ bag under his arm? Again no witnesses to corroborate that. Just your assertion the only 2 witnesses were ‘mistaken’.

            Normal standard police practice is preserved and photographed, promptly, before any evidence is moved or removed. Why was this not done for the bag?

            What was the chain of custoday for the bag? When asked by the Warren Commission if he took the bag down to the station, Lt Carl Day said “I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.” However, J. B. Hicks denied that he ever saw the bag.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13476
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=299

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier both told the FBI on 12/2/63 that the paper sack was 27″ long. Also, why exactly was the WC showing witnesses a ‘replica’ bag made on 12/1/63 at the TSBD and not WC Exhibit 142?
            http://22november1963.org.uk/tsbd-sixth-floor-paper-bag-genuine

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            You say: “Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier both told the FBI on 12/2/63 that the paper sack was 27″ long.”

            Here’s something else CT sources seldom mention. There’s another FBI report indicating that on 11/22 Linnie Mae Randle said the bag was “approximately 3 feet by 6 inches” long.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=693748

            This is plausible because nobody even knew that Oswald had taken a package to work until Randle told the police about it late that afternoon. A police report says she called it a “long” bag and considered it “suspicious.”

            The police immediately wondered if her brother was an accomplice who had knowingly transported Oswald and his rifle. They tracked Frazier down and grilled him, gave him a polygraph. Later on, his sister’s description of the bag got shorter to agree more with Frazier’s estimate. Witnesses often influence one another, so that’s not unusual.

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, are you accusing Frazier of procuring Randle to commit perjury?
            Frazier obviously had a close view of this package and to this day refuses to identify Exhibit 142 as the one he saw Oswald place in his car and carry into the TSBD.

            By the way, at what time did the DPD first learn that Oswald had carried a paper bag to work?

          • David Regan says:

            Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role: http://jfkfiles.blogspot.ca/2008/11/oswald-co-worker-no-longer-silent-about.html

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jean, are you accusing Frazier of procuring Randle to commit perjury?”

            Of course not. Didn’t I just say that witnesses often influence one another?

            “Frazier obviously had a close view of this package….”

            No, he glanced at it on the backseat and then saw Oswald walking ahead of him at a distance. In testimony he repeatedly said he paid hardly any attention to this bag.

            “By the way, at what time did the DPD
            first learn that Oswald had carried a paper bag to work?”

            Late afternoon, according to this police report (right side of page):

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=144491

            Again, David, do you think it was just a coincidence that Oswald brought a “27-inch long” package to work on that particular day? Will you or anyone else here ever dare to answer that question?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, you’re constant repeating of this question does not prove your case of the ‘gunsack’ beyond reasonable doubt.

            IMO, whatever was in the 27″ package was easily discarded by the DPD. For if there was not collusion on part of the DPD of planting fabricated evidence (which CE142 clearly is) and attempts at witness tampering by FBI (as claimed by Frazier and Randle), there is but gross incompetence at work yet again.

            But as I said before, the onus would not have been on Oswald’s defense counsel to prove where this bag came from or what happened to it after he entered the TSBD; only to point out the many holes and inconsistencies linking Oswald to the ‘gunsack’.

            As Hoover stated to LBJ on 11/23/63 concerning the case against Oswald “The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. … The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction”. This is why Oswald had to be taken out and not be allowed to stand trial.

            However, it didn’t stop Hoover’s attempt to “convince the public Oswald was the real assassin” by issuing a guilty verdict on the FBI Report issued 12/10/63, long before the WC hearings had started.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jean, you’re constant repeating of this question does not prove your case of the ‘gunsack’ beyond reasonable doubt.”

            I keep repeating the question because you haven’t answered it, David.

          • David Regan says:

            Whatever ‘package’ Oswald brought to work that morning, it wasn’t CE142. Frazier is adamant about that to this day.

            When and where do you suppose he allegedly made this bag? If he made this by hand, how do you explain there not being more identifiable prints other than a partial print (heel of palm and small portion of finger)
            Not to mention broken chain of evidence, failing to match TSBD paper to CE142, showing witnesses a ‘replica’ bag, no photographic evidence of the bag at the snipers nest.

            Frazier stated he had nothing with him Thursday night and neither Marina or Ruth saw him with a bag. No witnesses saw him with it in the TSBD.

            Sorry Jean, but had Oswald lived to stand trial, defense counsel would have poked enough holes on this evidence to establish reasonable doubt of fabricated evidence. IMO

          • On The Paper Bag:

            Jean, James DiEugenio presents this information at: http://www.ctka.net/2014/wr_anniv_03.html

            The Commission tells us that Oswald carried a rifle to work the day of the assassination in a long brown bag. Wesley Frazier and his sister said the bag was carried by Oswald under his arm. The problems with this story are manifold. For instance, there is no photo of this bag in situ taken by the Dallas Police. The eventual paper bag produced by the police had no traces of oil or grease on it even though the rifle had been soaked in a lubricant called Cosmoline for storage purposes.(DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 177) Though the rifle had to be dissembled to fit under Oswald’s armpit, the FBI found no bulges or creases in the paper. http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/the_bag.htm.

            Further, after a long and detailed analysis by Pat Speer, it appears that the bag in evidence did not match the Depository paper samples. (ibid, p. 179) Further, the police did not officially photograph the alleged gun sack until November 26th!

            All this strongly indicates that the bag the police brought outside the depository is not the same one in evidence today. (Click here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4d:sackoflies).
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Again, David, do you think it was just a coincidence that Oswald brought a “27-inch long” package to work on that particular day? Will you or anyone else here ever dare to answer that question?

            Jean: A miraculous series of pure coincidences indeed: Oswald had to meet Michael and Ruth Paine, Frazier had to move in with his sister Linnie Randle – the Paine’s neighbor – just weeks before 11.22.63 AND land the job at TSBD, Ruth Paine had to secure Oswald a job at the depository through Randle/Frazier, weeks later Frazier had to guarantee he could reliably transport Oswald to work on the 22nd, Warren Caster had to purchase rifles the week of the 18th (not the previous week), and Roy Truly had to hire Oswald (and Frazier) and along the way on the 20th engage with Oswald and Caster in discussion about rifles, and two days later identify Oswald minutes after the assassination as essentially the prime suspect. The universe aligned against the life of President Kennedy.

            What do you know about talk of hunting season in November in Texas? Have you ever been a fly on the wall during discussion of rifles, scopes, ammo and prime locations for the best hunting in the early fall? It is a rite of passage, subtle, nuanced yet a powerful and visceral annual experience. Warren Caster and Roy Truly were engaged in just such a ritual on Wednesday, November 20th inside the Texas School Book Depository. Caster had purchased rifles at the downtown Sears store the day after the disclosure of the route of President Kennedy’s motorcade. He brought the rifles back to the TSBD building.

            Caster’s testimony before the Warren Commision indicates that young Oswald was present along with building manager Roy Truly when Caster displayed these purchases. Why was Oswald welcomed into that inner circle? Did he simply chance upon the conversation between the two men? He was a new employee, fundamentally a day laborer while Caster was a junior executive of a major client of the depository business; Truly was Oswald’s boss so Oswald was hardly a peer of either man, yet there he was talking hunting season or rifles or both.

            The Warren Commission determined that this episode warranted entry into the official record. Why? To clear Caster’s name in the event a savvy investigator or defense attorney decided to pull a thread? It has been argued on this site that the testimony of Sandra Styles – a key witness within minutes of the assassination – did not warrant the expense necessary to have her testify; why spend money on Caster’s story of 48 hours prior to the assassination if it was meaningless?

            I challenge anyone to credibly brush off the Caster/Truly/Oswald/rifle episode that occurred some 48 hours prior to the assassination if the testimony of key witnesses who were present within minutes and feet of events in the TSBD was deemed nonessential to the investigation. Something does not equate.

            To be continued.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, (continued)

            As the conversation on Wednesday, November 20th between Caster, Truly and Oswald progressed and Oswald talked about his own rifle, he most likely was frustrated that it was too late to arrange for a trip to the Paine’s to retrieve it and ride to work with Frazier on Thursday morning for a show and tell with his new found friends. He had to delay the trip until Thursday and bring his rifle to work on Friday as he had been encouraged to do. “but be careful Lee, ya don’t wanna alarm anybody. Conceal it someway (a paper bag?), and by the way, this is just between us men.”

            I fully anticipate you will argue this is far fetched and others studying the paper bag contradictions may as well. However, when considered in the context of Oswald’s arguably relaxed exit from work in the midst of mayhem, and his demeanor after his arrest just hours later, I posit he was slowly realizing he had been set up and that the Caster-Truly encounter on Wednesday had been a pivotal component. His rifle with a paper trail leading to any one of a number of Oswald/Hidell identities was secreted into the building in a paper bag, but it was not the rifle used to shoot at Kennedy; it was a necessary prop to set Oswald up as patsy. Consider the reenactment of the discovery of a rifle, and consider the five decades of debate over the rifle(s) in question; what a powerful component in the cover up. Has anyone ever challenged that Caster’s rifle remained in the building? If memory serves, it was a Remington.

            This hypothesis implies a vast operation behind the assassination and begs a number of questions: who was Warren Caster and for whom did he work, and who was Roy Truly and what was his full history? Why was Caster not in the building at the time of the assassination (we know, he had a prior appointment in Denton with a former educator from Highlands University in New Mexico, a story in and of itself), and why was Truly the most credible source in identifying Oswald’s absence in the immediate aftermath, positioning him as the prime suspect?

            This is no weaker an hypothesis than collecting a myriad of details / nay coincidences beginning with Oswald’s early childhood and gluing them together with presumptions, speculation and amateur psychology to conclude that he was motivated by his passion for communism (or Marxism? neither of which he promotes while under arrest – thank you commenter Bogman for emphasizing that fact recently) to assassinate President Kennedy.

            As I understand it Jean, your theory in a nutshell insists that Oswald, having been provided a blueprint of the motorcade on Tuesday the 19th, spontaneously decided to wait (contradictory terms, spontaneous and wait) until Thursday the 21st to secure the murder weapon he would use on Friday the 22nd. Why didn’t he go to the Paines the afternoon of the 19th or at the latest the 20th ? Wasn’t he cutting it rather close? Can you explain how he could have been certain that Frazier’s car would be operable on Friday, that no fellow employee (Frazier), manager (Truly) or tenant (Caster) would ask him about the brown paper bag he was carrying into the building, that he wouldn’t be discovered in the sniper’s nest before you claim he fired? Are we to believe that an avowed communist with malice aforethought to murder the president would gamble to this extent in broad daylight, to shoot a moving target with a questionable weapon and no plan of escape?

            If your argument depends on getting inside Oswald’s head, why did you never consider getting inside the heads of the Paines, Frazier, Caster or Truly among many others?

          • David Regan says:

            Aside from obvious issues of the ‘evidence’ that is CE 142, any thoughts on what we are to make of this mysterious package sent to Lee Oswald?
            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YwYqFBoL3ZA/S0nxNLG3A0I/AAAAAAAAAI8/Urm8NzsEjkg/s1600-h/PaperBagPackage.jpg

            On December 4, 1963, a postal worker noticed a parcel addressed to Lee Oswald in the dead-letter section of the Irving Post Office. According to an FBI report, the package was addressed to Oswald at 601 W. Nassaus Street in Dallas, a non-existent address. The package contained a “brown paper bag made of fairly heavy brown paper which bag was open at both ends,” which was approximately 18″ in length.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy (and all),

            Your quote from Gil Jesus is unfortunately another example of how testimony gets distorted when it’s taken out of context. Like many others he claims that the FBI expert “found no bulges or creases in the paper.”

            But Cadigan didn’t say that. He said he found nothing about the bag that he could *specifically associate* with a rifle.

            QUOTE:
            Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or
            absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
            Mr. CADIGAN. No.
            UNQUOTE

            bottom of page:
            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=13305

            We’re heard these complaints about the bag for 50 years. Will your side of the debate ever explain where *you* think this bag came from? What’s *your* explanation? Did the cops decide to construct a fake bag in mid-afternoon before they’d been told that Oswald brought a bag to work? And what if Oswald hadn’t gone to Irving on Thursday and hadn’t brought a package? What then?
            Do you think the cops had foreknowledge and were all set to frame an innocent man for a President’s murder? Or WHAT?

            Conspiracy theorists simply have no narrative that explains the evidence. The WC explanation is still the only one in existence.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “As the conversation on Wednesday, November 20th between Caster, Truly and Oswald progressed and Oswald talked about his own rifle…”

            Amazingly, we agree on one thing, at least: Oswald brought his rifle to work. But could you cite any evidence that Oswald was “encouraged” to do so? Or that he and Caster or Truly exchanged a single word about his rifle, hunting, or anything else?

            The rifle incident happened at a counter in the hall just outside Truly’s office — Oswald wasn’t invited into some “inner circle.”

            The WC looked into this because during his interrogation Oswald said he’d seen a rifle in the building that Truly and some other men were looking at. He brought this up when Fritz asked him if he owned a rifle, which he denied.

            Caster didn’t “have to” buy a rifle that particular week. None of the others you mention “had to” do what they did. It just happened that way. Doesn’t anything ever happen by chance in your worldview, Ms. Sharp?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, who do you suppose was sending Oswald a paper bag in the mail?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jean, who do you suppose was sending Oswald a paper bag in the mail?”

            I’ll be glad to give you my answer, David, but you go first:

            Do you think it was a coincidence that Oswald brought a “27-inch long” package to work on 11/22?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, you’re not quoting the whole of Cadigan’s testimony. Reading in it’s entirety it is clear he could not positively identify a rifle had been in the bag.

            On top of that, Cadigan failed to match CE142 with paper samples taken from the TBSD, Jagger-Chiles or Riley’s.

            As you are well aware it is not only ‘CTs’ who are skeptics of the WC Report. The ‘honorable’ Gerald Ford, unbeknown to the public, was keeping the FBI informed of skeptics serving on the Commission and we now know Dulles witheld key information.

            You’ve been hearing these “complaints” about CE142 for 50 years because they are obvious issues with the ‘paper thin’ evidence linking it to Oswald.

            It is ludicrous to summarily dismiss these issues with your evidence, because as you know, defense counsel certainly would have rightly been hammering home these points at trial.

            IMO, the constant asking for an alternate scenario of where the bag came from, is masking knowledge of how weak the case for it was – unless of course you know something more than JEH did.

            Neither the DPD or FBI could prove the rifle had been in the bag or provide a witness who saw Oswald carrying that bag -as per WC testimony of Frazier, Randle and Dougherty.

            As you know, a crime scene is preserved and photographed promptly, before any evidence is moved or removed. This is standard police practice. Why was this not done by Fritz and his keystone cops? Studebaker was there with camera on the sixth floor and yet failed to get a single photo, but manages to take six photos when leaving the TBSD, at a time when they may have already learned from Randle that Oswald had a package that morning.

            Randle testified that she saw Oswald carrying the bag “from the top” and yet no prints there?

            If Oswald handmade the bag from wrapping paper at the Depository – as the Warren Commission concluded – how did he get it to Ruth Paine’s home Thursday night?

            Frazier repeatedly said Oswald had no package with him at that time, so the WC arbitraily decided Oswald must have hidden the paper bag in his jacket, although there was no reason to do so and despite the discomfort and rustling noise sure to have been made by a 38-inch-by-18-inch folded paper bag.

            Not to mention the impossibility of carrying a package this length cupped under your armpit.

          • John R says:

            If you don’t mind, Jean, I would like to address one of your comments, then answer one of your questions. About Ruth Paine: I think it’s at least reasonable to suspect she and her husband worked for the government in 1963. They could end the speculation tomorrow by authorizing the IRS to release their W-2’s. They haven’t done that, nor has the government released Oswald’s W-2’s, which are still classified, after all these years. Really? That doesn’t bother you at all? Now, to answer your question regarding the bag. To my knowledge, only one person asked Oswald about the bag. His answer to Wesley Frazier was that it contained curtain rods. You ASSUME he’s lying. It is at least possible Oswald was telling the truth. Because Lt. Day did not properly document finding the bag we don’t know if it was empty, consequently, the question can’t be answered. BTW, if the folds were 6″ apart, and the bag is folded twice, you end up with a bag that 26″ long. (38-6-6.) I don’t know where the 27″ number came from, but was that just a lucky guess?

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            Cadigan said the bag matched the paper sample taken from the TSBD on 11/22. Who told you it didn’t?

            I’ve already acknowledged(1/20) that Cadigan testified there were no marks inside the bag that he could say were caused specifically by a rifle. He also said that this didn’t mean the bag wasn’t used to carry a rifle, so why do you suppose CT books even mention this?

            It’s a CT misconception that fingerprints are always found on objects that are handled. It’s quite common not to find prints. You could look it up.

            Officers Johnson and Montgomery were assigned to stay in the SN until the photographer got to that area. One of them noticed a bag folded over twice on the floor and picked it up to see what it was.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=17713

            Once he’d picked it up there was no point in trying to photograph it “in place.”
            The photos of the bag being brought out of the building were taken by a news photographer in mid-afternoon, before Randle spoke to the cops in Irving. I believe that’s Montgomery bringing out the bag:

            http://s217.photobucket.com/user/David_Von_Pein/media/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/117aTheEmptyPaperBag.jpg.html?t=1278553979

            “IMO, the constant asking for an alternate scenario of where the bag came from, is masking knowledge of how weak the case for it was…”

            No, it shows that after 50 years CTs still have no alternate explanation for the evidence against Oswald.

          • “Will your side of the debate ever explain where *you* think this bag came from? What’s *your* explanation? Did the cops decide to construct a fake bag in mid-afternoon before they’d been told that Oswald brought a bag to work? And what if Oswald hadn’t gone to Irving on Thursday and hadn’t brought a package? What then?
            Do you think the cops had foreknowledge and were all set to frame an innocent man for a President’s murder? Or WHAT?”~Jean Davison

            Let’s start here:
            “Did the cops decide to construct a fake bag in mid-afternoon before they’d been told that Oswald brought a bag to work?”

            No Jean, all the local cops needn’t be involved in a compartmentalized Black Op. This whole “snipers nest” is a staged production, staged by those writing the script. The script calls for Oswald to get a rifle (that has never been proven conclusively that he bought) into the building. So the sack would have been a prop, just like the rifle and the bullets.

            If this crap was ever put under the microscope of a serious trial, just the fact that the bag was not photographed where it was supposedly found would have brought into reasonable doubt it’s authenticity.

            Now, don’t dare now come back with the accusation that the scenario I just described is “hypothetical” because in fact your case is no less hypothetical than mine.

            You have yet to address the proximate point of the rifle getting into Oswald’s possession. The money order problems, the timing of the receipt of the order and the almost miraculous delivery – all without ANY original documentation – all of it being photocopies in possession of the authorities and the original docs conveniently having disappeared.

            So before you give us this contrite position of certainty about the bag, lets get all the dots lined up in a row, because there are many before your bag has any merit one way or the other.
            \\][//

            `

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Amazingly, we agree on one thing, at least: Oswald brought his rifle to work. ”

            The endless debate over minutae does not serve to resolve the case. The crux of the investigation is how was Oswald set up? “How the heck did that magician pull off that trick?”

            How could he serve as The Perfect Patsy if there wasn’t sufficient circumstantial evidence to convince the wider public that he alone assassinated John Kennedy. Wouldn’t Americans have taken to the streets without the calming effect of “we’ve got our man?” In order for him to serve that role successfully 1) he had to have been tied to a weapon, one that would be alleged to have been fired at Kennedy from the 6th Floor. The paper trail with all its discrepancies served the magician well as distraction. No one has been looking for conspirators while sorting out the paper trail of the rifle. 2) a rifle conforming to that trail had to end up on the 6th floor the day of the assassination or at least there had to be the perception. These were the bookends of the investigation. Press release: “Oswald owned a rifle and that rifle was found on the 6th Floor.”

            However, the rifle could have been planted … the audience could have cried foul at the magician, “hey, you planted that rifle!” Between the bookends rests the magician’s sleight of hand; Oswald had to be the one to bring the rifle into the building, and he had to have been witnessed doing so. Enter the magician’s assistant – witting of the trick or not – and not just one but two for corroboration that Oswald left Iriving with a long package and Oswald carried that package into the building; otherwise he was not the ‘perfect’ patsy – one who took the world’s eye off the conspiracy.

            Without the testimony of Frazier and Randle, as controversial as it became over time, Oswald was weak as the only suspect. Magicians knew that, they knew their plot would implode without witnesses to the package.

            If he had been carrying curtain rods, why didn’t he simply bind them with string? NOTE: this in no way is an argument that Oswald fired at Kennedy … it is to assert that he was skillfully set up … facts had to align tightly for him to be The Perfect Patsy.

          • Jean Davison says:

            John R, (1/28)

            Everybody’s tax returns, including the Paines’, are “classified” in the sense that by federal law they can’t be released without the taxpayer’s written consent. Evidently the Paines gave consent because copies of their returns were sent to the WC, but they’ve never been made public, so far as I know:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1539705

            “Now, to answer your question regarding the bag. To my knowledge, only one person asked Oswald about the bag. His answer to Wesley Frazier was that it contained curtain rods. You ASSUME he’s lying.”

            Fritz also asked about the bag and Oswald told him it contained his lunch. He’s lying to somebody, for sure.

            But that wasn’t my question, John. My question is one in a series that have been asked to try to elicit an alternate explanation for Oswald’s actions that day.

            Do you and other Oswald supporters here think it was just a coincidence that he went to Irving where the rifle was stored, left his wedding ring, and brought an oblong package to work?

            Was it also just a coincidence that by his own account Oswald ate lunch in the back of the building instead of watching the President he supposedly admired ride by? Was it also by coincidence that when Baker rushed in, he spotted Oswald near the back stairs at just about the same time a fleeing gunman might’ve been there?

            I’m asking for speculation, not evidence. CTs don’t like the WC scenario explaining all this, but what’s theirs?

          • David Regan says:

            Sorry Jean, but Cadigan’s testimony comes down to one plain fact – there was no evidence that the “gunsack” ever contained CE139 or any other rifle.

            So, who exactly found the paper sack? Was it Montgomery or Johnson? According to affidavits by Studebaker (11/24) and Day (11/30) they claimed to have found it.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=131
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=132

            Also, how is it Montgomery and Johnson were so inept as to pick up evidence before being photographed, if they were there to “preserve the crime scene”, as Johnson claims in his testimony?

            Studebaker was able to take many photos of the SN, including the shells. Although the WC stated that the “gunsack” had been found on the sixth floor near the sniper’s nest, it provided no physical proof that it had and failed to name the person who found it, thus preventing the establishment of a chain of custody. You don’t think this would have presented issues for the prosecutioh at trial?

            What I find interesting is that Officer McCurley, one of the officers who guarded the southeastern corner until the crime lab officers arrived, made no mention of the paper bag when he described going over and seeing the “three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street” in his supplementary investigation report written on 11/22.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141282
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141297

            Also, how is it the “gunsack” was 17″ wide, but the TSBD paper rolls were 24″ wide? http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11293&relPageId=190

            According to this FBI report on 11/29, Lt Carl Day claimed that Roy Truly was a witness to his finding the bag and that “no one else viewed it” but Truly told the WC that he didn’t remember being there when things were found in the southeast corner. Doesn’t strike you as odd? http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=132
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=39&relPageId=239

            When asked by the Warren Commission if he took the bag down to the station, Lt Day said “I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.” However, J. B. Hicks denied that he ever saw the bag.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13476
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=299

            This 11/30 FBI report concluded that the inside surface of the paper bag “did not disclose markings identifiable with the rifle” http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=171

      • David Regan says:

        Looks like planted evidence to me, Bob.

        Exhibit 14 in the FBI’s Summary Report on the assassination is a photograph of the bag in which numerous pieces of paper tape can be seen along its right side and tape is visible in the middle of the open end of the bag but no tape is seen in any of the six known photographs of the bag leaving the Texas School Book Depository.
        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327309
        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag2.jpg
        http://jaylipp.com/JFK/images/Paper_Bag_Leaving2.jpg
        http://ruby.jfkassassination.net/images/bag3.jpg

    • Gerald Campeau says:

      Mr. DULLES. Supplementing a point that was raised earlier, I find that President Kennedy’s visit to Texas was reported in the Dallas Morning News as early as September 26, 1963, and the pertinent. sections of this press report–it is headed, “Kennedy to Visit Texas November 21-22,”

      • Jean Davison says:

        The trip was announced in September but not the motorcade or a specific route.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Even in September, it would have been possible to look at all of the options, and to plan around them. For all we know, there were several assassination sites considered, and several lone nuts in place to be set up as patsies.

          For instance, one forgone conclusion is that JFK’s plane would land at Love field, and a distinct, but by no means certain, possibility is that a luncheon could be given for JFK at the Trade Mart. So, how many logical routes are there between Love Field and the Trade Mart? Main St. is obvious as part of the route, yet it is impossible to access the Stemmons Freeway from Main St., due to a concrete barrier separating Main and Elm. The next option is to make the turn onto Houston, and then onto Elm. Lo and behold, an ambush zone just waiting for JFK, and anyone with any smarts could have figured it out way back in September.

          The tricky part would be getting the motorcade to pass by the TSBD during the lunch hour. JFK almost blew this one by stopping at Love Field to glad hand with the crowd. I’m sure Roy Truly would have given his employees some time out to go out and see the President.

    • Mayra Solloa says:

      There isn’t a single quantum of proof that could connect LHO with a rifle kept in the garage at Paine’s house, since he never purchased the one in evidence (See John Armstrong piece about it).

    • “The WC looked into this because during his interrogation Oswald said he’d seen a rifle in the building that Truly and some other men were looking at. He brought this up when Fritz asked him if he owned a rifle, which he denied.”Jean Davison

      But of course Oswald denying he owned a rifle automatically means that he DID own a rifle…”Because, because? Because of the wonderful things he does!” … grin, so here we go to the wondrous land of Oz, with Jean playing the part of Dorothy and Earl Warren playing the Wizard of Oz.

      Pardon my laps into humor here Jean, but following your “reasoning” has become quite a chore and I needed a break of humor to refresh my sensibilities.
      \\][//

      • Jean Davison says:

        Willy,

        Somebody’s reasoning is laughable here, but I don’t think it’s mine. I said “Fritz asked him if he owned a rifle, which he denied,” which is a simple statement of what happened.

        I didn’t say or imply that his denial meant that he owned a rifle. That’s absurd.

  3. Vanessa says:

    PS Dear Jeff

    You mention Lovelady on Altgens and I agree with you that story is not credible at all. But you haven’t mentioned the Prayerman figure on Weigman – these are two distinct persons and both are captured in a frame of Weigman standing together.

    Can I ask if you have any views on the Prayerman discussion? The link is here

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354

    regards Vanessa

  4. John Rowell says:

    According to my copy of “Oswald’s Tale:” p663

    On Thursday. Nov 21st, Lee asks Wesley Frazier for a ride home.

    To quote Mailer: “Oswald has come, by now, to a serious decision. It is still preliminary to his final determination, but he has decided to take his rifle to the School Book Depository on Friday, November 22. All week, the talk at work has been concerned with President Kennedy’s visit. The route has been published in the newspapers. The official motorcade will pass by the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street. Our man, who has spent half his life reading books and now works in a place that ships out textbooks to the children and college youth of America, may be preparing to engage in an act that some huge majority of the people who read books devotedly would be ready to condemn.”

    For the record, I am not amongst the group to whom this question is directed.

  5. Neil says:

    There’s no concrete evidence that Lee Oswald was aware of the motorcade route before he got to work on 11/22/63.

    From the testimony of James Jarman, there’s some evidence that Oswald was NOT aware of the motorcade route on the morning of 11/22:

    Mr. BALL – Did you talk to him again that morning?
    Mr. JARMAN – Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning.
    Mr. BALL – About what time?
    Mr. JARMAN – It was between 9:30 and 10 o’clock, I believe.
    Mr. BALL – Where were you when you talked to him?
    Mr. JARMAN – In between two rows of bins.
    Mr. BALL – On what floor?
    Mr. JARMAN – On the first floor.
    Mr. BALL – And what was said by him and by you?
    Mr. JARMAN – Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, “Oh, I see,” and that was all.

    http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm

    I understand why it’s assumed that Oswald had to be aware of the Kennedy motorcade route earlier than 11/22. He read the papers and was very politically informed. I just haven’t seen any concrete evidence that Oswald was aware that the motorcade would pass the Depository prior to arriving at work on 11/22.

  6. Rick Geyer says:

    Regardless of how hard you look, study, research or investigate there is no point that one can determine when or why LHO decided to shoot JFK. I’m convinced he was not a shooter though he clearly had some role, wittingly or not, on the plot. I’m as curious as anyone as to when the LN’s can pinpoint to when LHO committed himself. To posit that it was mere impulse on the spur of the moment is preposterous—as preposterous as the LN point of view.

  7. lbjkilledjfk says:

    There’s no way Oswald stood in the doorway of the TSBD watching the assassination and then ran upstairs to be found purchasing a coke from the machine on the second floor. He was one of the shooters, one of three, who were supposed to meet up later at a rendezvous point. Too bad Oswald wasn’t told that he was always meant to be the “patsy” for the killing. Sucker!

  8. Photon says:

    The day that he discovered that the JFK’s motorcade was going to go past the TSBD.
    If we are to believe the only person that he apparently had a successful relationship with he was more interested in a target of opportunity, not so much as what that target was. As such we see the attempt on Walker- a target appropriate for a his revolutionary sympathies but frankly devoid of any real significance politically or personally . We see the plan to shoot Nixon requiring Marina’s active involvement to keep Oswald home-an action not so much in regard to the ideology of a washed-up and fading politician but an action that would put Oswald in the headlines as a revolutionary hero.
    But then an opportunity of truly historic proportions presented itself-an opportunity ready-made for his ” historic diary” mentality.
    Complicating this was the collapse of that one successful relationship.His actions of Nov. 21-22 indicated that he believed that relationship was over, the ring and money left on the dresser. He had nothing to lose, but he also had an opportunity to finally be successful at something, A success not so much proven to others, but to himself-confirmation to his sociopathic personality that he was truly important, that he was truly an historic figure, that he was truly a romantic revolutionary hero.That was enough, as apparently he never made any real plans for Act II-escape,evasion, tomorrow. Like modern terrorists, the deed was enough; like an expended munition no further existance was necessary. Which brings up another possibility-that after a lifetime of failure deep down Oswald must have realistically considered that he might not have been able to pull it off or that even the possibility of him surviving the attempt was nil. I personally believe that Oswald was surprised that a. his attempt was successful and b. he was not killed in the attempt. That would explain his pathetic attempts to escape after the shooting and the panic killing of Tippit. As a Louisiana boy I am sure Oswald knew what happened to Huey Long’s assassin.
    For motive, just review the video of the Friday night press conference, where finally we see Oswald in all of his glory, the center of world attention as he always wanted to be.
    What was Sara Jane Moore’s motive? Squeaky Fromm’s? Chapman’s? Arthur Bremmer’s? Charles Whitman’s? How often outside of crimes of passion is a motive truly obvious? How often in political assassinations is there truly a motive beyond ” political assassination”? To assume that a sociopathic personality will always behave in a rational and predictive manner is sheer naïveté .

    • “But then an opportunity of truly historic proportions presented itself-an opportunity ready-made for his ” historic diary” mentality.”
      ~Photon

      This amateur psychological profiling by Photon’s sounds like something directly out of Bugliosi’s prosecutorial brief. It is like one is reading a novel and knows what the characters are thinking.
      It is absurd as well.

      On another matter Photon, I have asked for your sources that you claim put Sherry Fiester’s work history claims in doubt. Were you reading her mind as well?
      \\][//

      • Photon says:

        How do you know that it is amateur?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Oh my goodness! You’re not only a medical doctor, but a psychologist, as well?

        • How do you prove it is professional?
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            I did ECT at St. Mary’s in Rochester. They had turned the State Hospital into a Federal Prison-Jim Bakker was one of the first guests.

          • “I did ECT at St. Mary’s in Rochester.”~Photon

            And this can be verified by looking up the records of “Photon” at St. Mary’s?

            You are essentially an anonymous poster here Photon. You are going to have to be judged on your performance here, not on some asserted expertise you claim without the slightest possibility of verification.
            So far I see no reason to suspect you of having any professional medical background whatsoever.
            \\][//

        • Vanessa says:

          Photon – this is at least the second time you have taunted us about your qualifications in psychology. Time for some cards on the table, don’t you think?

          And if you think I can’t find the comment where you teased us about this before, believe me I can. 🙂

        • Frqank says:

          No credentials.

          • Matt says:

            If Oswald did it for fame, or (more charitably) to be a revolutionary hero, why did he vehemently deny shooting anyone in Dallas that day?

          • Thomas says:

            I agree with Matt and there’s never been a satisfactory answer to this question.

        • Vanessa says:

          Well Jack Crabbe, so you were a psychiatric nurse?

          Hmm, Olmsted. Why does that sound familiar? Is there anyone on here who is not actually Photon? 🙂

    • Neil says:

      It was determined that Oswald never had an opportunity to kill Richard Nixon.

      The only explanation is that Marina lied for some reason

    • Bogman says:

      So the glory-seeking assassin then denies the act to literally his dying breath, shaking his head when a police officer told him he was dying and asked him if he had any last words.

      That makes less sense then the conspiracy theories that involves just about everyone.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      What an imagination!

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Dear Photon – I think this might be your masterpiece. It says everything and nothing and not a single link in sight.

    • Mayra Solloa says:

      What about the timing? To assume that a sociopathic personality will behave in a rational and predictive manner waiting at a window —without being detected— for the event that will open the doors to media immortality is more than naïve.

        • David Regan says:

          Because history has shown that aside from Oswald, three presidential assassins and six would-be assassins were political fanatics willing to die to get at the President, committing their twisted act in the open and at close range.

    • Paulf says:

      Photon: funny you mention the Manson family, they DID have a motive. Certainly one that was twisted to a rational person, and fueled by drugs, but they were trying to start a race war. And they all talked about it, funny enough. Maybe you want to give another example?

      By contrast, there is not a single shred of evidence that Oswald was a sociopath. He got through Marine training with no apparent trouble, defected back and forth at the height of the Cold War allegedly without being watched by the spy agencies (haha) got married, had a job and so on. He did not a single thing in his life that was sociopathic except allegedly kill Kennedy for no apparent reason.

      And that’s the rub. The only way to get to your conclusion is to start with the assumption that he must have done it, and the only explanation is that he was a sociopath who acted in unpredictable ways because no rational explanation makes the slightest bit of sense. Has anybody ever committed a crime for no reason? Sure. But those crimes are a million years removed from Oswald’s alleged acts.

    • Photon, on January 9, 2015 at 6:46 am, you posted this comment:
      “Leslie, after several days Bruce can’t refute my statements. Just as with the Fiester challenge earlier this year, when I post documented facts impeaching a narrative that is untrue the source of the claim disappears.”

      I have asked for you to repost these “facts impeaching a narrative that is untrue” concerning CSI Fiester. I have requested this time and again, and you have failed to respond for at least two weeks now.
      I can only conclude that you have no such facts and are dodging my questions purposely. I conclude that your so-called “facts” were nothing but the same type of inflated hyperbole I read in your commentary so often.
      \\][//

  9. Gerald Campeau says:

    The fact is, it all smacks of a cold-blooded and heartless MK-ULTRA “hit” by Army Special Forces instructors the kind that taught at School of Americas in Panama and at Fort Bragg Georgia one Evan had degree as Mechanical engineer to fix elevators for escape Why MK-ULTRA On November 29, 1963,four days after JFK Funeral a meeting convened in the office of General Marshall S. Carter … Dr. Sidney Gottlieb was called on Carpet for experimenting on unwitting military man such as LHO 42 day stay in Japanese Brig. Was LHO just transfixed starring at signaller man/woman at curb on Elm St. as testified to by Ron Fischer And–uh–all the time I watched him, he never moved his head, he never-he never moved anything. Just was there transfixed. Did he shoot not sure but there was shots from TSBD and grassy nole

    • Bill Simpich says:

      Gerald,

      Can you give us the references for the carter-gottlieb meeting on 11/29, the army special forces instructor who was also a mechanical engineer.

      I saw the testimony of Ron Fischer that you mentioned, and that of his friend Bob Edwards (Vol 6 of Warren hearings , pp 190-205) they both corroborated seeing a man with a light colored shirt as did other witnesses, lho as I understand it was wearing a dark colored shirt that day. Good stuff. I had not reviewed that before, food for thought. I see why the lone gunman believers don’t cite Fischer – he believed the shots came from the railroad tracks.

  10. Thomas says:

    I have never bought the conspiracy view that Oswald just happened to be alone in the lunch room at the time. It makes no sense to me. If he’s a designated patsy his actions must be controlled or the whole cover story is blown. He can’t be out in the open where several people can say, “Lee was standing right next to me when the president drove by” or worse caught on camera in an indisputable way.

    I don’t think it’s hard for a young man to bound down several flights of stairs in less than a minute. I don’t know if he shot a rifle, he may have, but I think there still is “involvement” by others from Conspiracy Lite (let’s let it happen, Oswald works in TSBD and we hear he might take a shot) to Conspiracy Heavy (he was working with others but he didn’t know he’d be hung out to dry as the patsy).

    I think he may have had help and not known it in advance. In other words the planners knew he might take a shot and wanted to be sure the job got done i.e., a shot from the front to seal the deal.

    Back to the original question: when did he decide to shoot. As a loose cannon I believe it could have been as late as the day before.

  11. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    Just on November 19, LHO must have known that JFK would pass by TSBD, as Dallas Times Herald published the motorcade route (CE 1362). On the given day, according to WC, he took his broken down rifle along with clip, ammo, and the scope in a bag, rode with Frazier to TBSD and placed it somewhere.
    The fully assembled rifle was found on the 6th floor at 1:22 pm. LHO must have retrieved the bag and reassembled the rifle to open fire at 12:30 pm, although the available info was that the Luncheon at Trade Mart will start 12 noon. If the Secret Service noticed Chief Curry that Air Force One was to land at 11:30 am, how could LHO be ready just on time it the plane touched down later?
    Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle at the SW 6th floor window around 12:15 pm. At that time, Carolyn Arnold saw LHO on a lower floor; around noon. Eddie Piper had seen him on the 1st floor aound noon. By that time Bonnie Ray Williams arrived at the 6th floor and started lunch only a few yards from the sniper’s nest. He heard nothing and stated: “I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12.”
    Thus, LHO seemed to be completely unaware as late as 12:15 pm, while the motorcade was in delay, leaving the airport at 11:55 pm. But the WC has him retrieving the bag, assembling the rifle and setting up the sniper’s nest in the SE 6th floor corner within 15’20 minutes without knowing any timing detail. Even if LHO planned the killing in less than three days, his plan must have taken into consideration when the motorcade would be passing by. The delay must have forced him to wait too much.

  12. Bug: (p.1445)
    “…The mundane exercise of learning to drove and looking forward to one day having a driving license speaks loudly for the proposition that Oswald’s intent to murder the president was formed somewhat on the spur of the moment not long before the day of the assassination, and as a necessary corollary and concomitant to this, against the proposition that a group like the CIA or organized crime conspired with Oswld to have him kill Kennedy for them.”

    “Other things Oswald did during the month leading up to the assassination clearly represented a person in the normal, humdr rhythm of life, not someone preparing, with others, to murder the president of the United States.”

    BK notes – Oswald’s behavior before and after the assassination is also of someone who recognises that he has been set up and framed for crimes he didn’t it.

  13. CC says:

    Jeff raises a good point about why Oswald wasn’t outside watching the parade if he was not involved. However, I wouldn’t necessarily make the leap that Oswald was in the window with a rifle. There’s good evidence he was in the lunchroom at the time of the shooting. I’d posit that Oswald was involved but may not have known the full context of the plot, perhaps from a logistics standpoint (knowledge and layout of the TSBD, for example). According to John Martino, Oswald was to meet his contact at the Texas Theatre. Would Oswald have gone to the theatre as scheduled if he suddenly realized he was setup? Probably not, that suggests some pre knowledge on Oswald’s part if we are to believe the Martino confession.

    Here’s the context from an earlier JFKFacts blog:
    Martino’s confession was not confined to his wife and son Eddie. In 1975 he told Newsday reporter John Cummings about his involvement in the JFK murder, serving as a courier, delivering money, etc. He told a similar story to his business partner Fred Claasen that same year, as recounted in Tony Summer’s book Conspiracy:
    The anti-Castro people put Oswald together. Oswald didn’t know who he was working for–he was just ignorant of who was really putting him together. Oswald was to meet his contact at the Texas Theatre. They were to meet Oswald in the theatre, and get him out of the country, then eliminate him. Oswald made a mistake…There was no way we could get to him. They had Ruby kill him.

    • Matt says:

      I agree that the Texas Theatre visit was prearranged. Otherwise, how would so many cops converge on the theatre just for a shifty character who had not paid for his ticket? Look at the photos of Oswald’s arrest: the president has been shot, a cop murdered, yet we see so many detectives, press, agents an onlookers to pick up a ‘nobody’ fare-dodger. Common sense tells us that someone who was ‘in on it’ tipped-off Oswald’s whereabouts, and they knew he would be there because they had pre-arranged the whole thing.

      • Jean Davison says:

        Oswald was headed away from the Texas Theater until after he shot Tippit and reversed course:

        https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=182

        The police went to the theater because Oswald was spotted acting suspiciously, ducking the police who were searching that area, not because he didn’t buy a ticket.

        • David Regan says:

          Jean, the following excerpts are from the WC testimony of Julia Postal and Johnny Brewer. Postal never even saw LHO enter the theatre and was only able to provide a vague description when calling the police. She had never heard the broadcast description of a suspect on the radio.

          It is obvious from their testimony that the DPD were playing judge, jury and executioner before Oswald was even booked downtown:

          Mr. BALL. And you didn’t see him actually enter the theatre then?
          Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir.
          Mr. BALL. You hadn’t seen him go by you?
          Mrs. POSTAL. I knew he didn’t go by me, because I was facing west, and Johnny, he had come up from east which meant he didn’t go back that way. He had come from east going west.
          Mr. BALL. All right, now what happened after that?
          Mrs. POSTAL. Well, I, like—-I told him—-asked him to check everything.
          Mr. BALL. Did you ask Butch Burroughs if he had seen him?
          Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I told Johnny this, don’t tell him, because he is an excitable person, and just have him, you know, go with you and examine the exits and check real good, so, he came back and said he hadn’t seen anything although, he had heard a seat pop up like somebody getting out, but there was nobody around that area, so, I told Johnny about the fact that the President had been assassinated. “I don’t know if this is the man they want,” I said, “in there, but he is running from them for some reason,” and I said “I am going to call the police, and you and Butch go get on each of the exit doors and stay there.”
          So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, “Well, I didn’t know,” and he said, “Well, it fits the description,” and I have not—I said I hadn’t heard the description. All I know is, “This man is running from them for some reason.” And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know—-well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, “Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there.” And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn’t tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, “Thank you,” and I called the operator and asked him to look through the little hole and see if he could see anything and told him I had called the police, and what was happening, and he wanted to know if I wanted him to cut the picture off, and I says, “No, let’s wait until they get here.” So, seemed like I hung up the intercom phone when here all of a sudden, police cars, policemen, plainclothesmen, I never saw so many people in my life. And they raced in, and the next thing I knew, they were carrying—-well, that is when I first heard Officer Tippit had been shot because some officer came in the box office and used the phone, said, “I think we have got our man on both accounts.” “What two accounts?” And said, “Well, Officer Tippit’s,” shocked me, because Officer Tippit used to work part time for us years ago. I didn’t know him personally.
          Mr. BALL. You mean he guarded the theatre?
          Mrs. POSTAL. On Friday nights and Saturdays, canvass the theatre, you know, and that—-then they were bringing Oswald out the door over there and —-

          Mr. BREWER – And somebody hollered “He’s got a gun.”
          And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don’t know who it was, “Kill the President, will you.” And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.

          Interesting to note Postal testifies that Officer Tippit used to work weekends at the theatre.

        • Matt says:

          Fair enough. When the president’s assassin is not yet known, would it not be better to stretch out resources by only sending one cop car with two officers at most to pick up somebody looking suspicious?

          • David Regan says:

            You would think so, given the police were being flooded with calls from Dallas citizens.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Guys, Tippit’s killer had been tracked through witnesses to the Jefferson Blvd area where the theater was located and that’s where the police search was concentrated. Here’s part of the radio transcript (the theater appears on the next page):

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1138&relPageId=420

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, from reading this transcript it is not apparant to me how a man they stopped at the library, whose description was different from Oswald, was arrested then immediately dertemined to not be the right man (1:33-1:45).

            Who provided this description that is not LHO?

            What is the location?
            – ‘ 2223-531 Mareallis and Jefferson. library, I’m going around book
            got somebody around the front . get them here fast .
            531 lay unit near Masvalle and Jefferson at the library.
            Transmissions garbled.
            tf4 eg’ 2a-531 They got his held up. looks like to this building, at the ,
            ~; ocraerl
            (YGU.eI’ j-l 19-531 We’re all at the library.
            221-531 tUht can give you some additional information. I got
            an eye ball witness to the Cot away man that suspect in this shooting, white male twenty seven, five eleven, one .
            sixty five, black wavy hair. fair complexion . wearing a
            light grey , Eisenhower jacket dash trousers, white shirt
            last soon running on the north aide of the street from
            Patton on Jefferson on Rant Jeffereon. As’e apparently
            armed with a .32 dark finish automatic pistol which he
            had in his right hand .

            Shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol (very interesting)

            So, the first mention of Texas Theatre was mentioned at 1:45 and “Have information the suspect just went into the Texas Theater on West Jefferson, supposed to be hiding in the balcony..”

            Where is a broadcast to send a fleet of cars there to make an arrest?

            The corner of Tenth & Patton is 0.6 miles (12min walk) from the Texas Theatre. Were witnesses following the suspect(s) all along this route? https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.743379,-96.825927&z=14&t=m&hl=en&gl=US&mapclient=embed&q=231+W+Jefferson+Blvd+Dallas,+TX+75208+USA&output=classic&dg=brw

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            Middle of second page says of the library suspect, “It was just a boy running to tell them what happened, he works there.”
            He became a suspect because someone had spotted him running into the building, but he was quickly eliminated because other library employees vouched for him. There’s more about this in Dale Myers’ excellent book With Malice. I don’t remember all the details but I believe Myers interviewed the young man, who was apparently scared out of his wits when the cops rushed in.

            There’s more from the transcript on McAdams’ site:
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm

            I’m not sure but I don’t think the police cars had to be ordered to the scene. They were apparently going wherever they thought the suspect was, like the library.

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, are we to believe that given the many circumstances of DPD collusion and/or incompetence in this case, they showed such great intuition to send a fleet of squad cars to the theatre based on Postal’s vague description over the phone? I’m happy to point out many contradictions in testimony from witnesses at the theatre.

  14. Jonathan says:

    Photon says Oswald had a sociopathic personality.

    What are the characteristics of a sociopathic personality?

    • “What are the characteristics of a sociopathic personality?” ~Jonathan

      This is a complex subject involving the distinction between “sociopathic” and “psychopathic”. Depending on sources, and these vary greatly, I have come to the conclusion that a ‘Psychopath’ is born with this malady, that it is in the physical structure of the brain, mainly the amygdala (corpus amygdaloideum) and also the calcification of the pineal gland and a disruption of the signals from the hippocampus.
      The indicative signs of such a personality are lack of empathy.
      The ‘sociopath’ on the other hand is usually the product of trauma and abuse as a child – often at the hands of a psychopathic caretaker or family member.
      Another related topic in Political Ponerism. Look this up it is interesting and seems to have much to do with the world situation historically.
      \\][//

      • Photon says:

        Read Oswald’s Psychiatric evaluation of 4-16-53. It is consistant with a sociopathic personality-although at age 13 he was too young to be classified as such.His later actions as an adult were typical of the personality.

      • Jonathan says:

        So if Photon is correct that Oswald had a sociopathic personality, we should look for facts showing Oswald as a child suffered trauma and abuse at the hands of a family member or caretaker. I assume a mother’s neglect, depending on degree and nature, isn’t necessarily abuse and doesn’t necessarily cause trauma.

        What do you make of Photon’s comment, Willy Whitten?

        • “This 13 year old, well built, well nourished boy was remanded to Youth House for the first time on charge of truancy from school and of being beyond the control of his mother as far as school attendance is concerned. This is his first contact with the law.”~Renatus Hartogs, M.D., Ph.D.

          I think this evaluation is a precursor to what is now called, oppositional defiant disorder, or ODD. I also think that this is an assessment drawn from the paradigm of enforced regimentation developed by the importation of mandatory schooling template of the Prussian schools that I tried to educate Photon on previously.
          As we see from the data in this profile by Dr. Hartogs, Lee was an exceptionally bright boy, and bored with school. He was a natural autodidact, and would have been better off left to his own education, interests and designs.
          He was a misfit in a pathological society. This was not a malady then as it is not now.

          Let me inquire of the ‘brilliant’ Mr Photon;
          What does it mean to be well adjusted to a pathological society?

          Shall we go through the paces again on the pathological approach to indoctrination, conditioning, training and regimentation forced upon the youth of this nation by this Prussian approach? To what is in the final essence, brain washing?
          Or we could approach it from the angle of the intense, in fact maniacal militarism that under-girds the military industrial complex and it’s unhinged weapons procurement and maintenance budgets, adding to that the huge subsidiary civilian support system.

          Or we could approach this with the substantial proofs that the sitting so-called “government in DC and spread like an octopus all the way to municipal levels is ultra vires, and has no legitimacy according to the strictures of the Constitution of the United States.
          The two most glaring of these point is “Presidential War Powers” & “Executive Privilege”.

          Photon can take his pick, or again hand wave these issues.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            You seem to believe that Horace Mann’s advocacy of the Prussian model of public education had some regimented or pseudo-militaristic reason while missing the applicability of the model to 1870s America. The ” Prussian Model” was based on the egalitarian concept that public education should be the same for everyone, regardless of class or income. It had nothing to do with your stereotypical belief that Prussia was some overmilitaristic society , a 19th Century Sparta. In actuality it was advanced socially and had one of the first social welfare programs in Europe. Bismarck was as renowned for his social services as his nationalist policies.

            At any rate, I fail to see how attending 12 different schools instilled any regimentation in Oswald. The only thing ” pathological” about our society is that it is not perfect and that it is composed of human beings .

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Pssst! That’s “Dr.” Photon, not Mr. Photon. Get it right, eh?

          • “You seem to believe that Horace Mann’s advocacy of the Prussian model of public education had some regimented or pseudo-militaristic reason while missing the applicability of the model to 1870s America.”~Photon

            As I have stressed before herr Doktor, I do not speak in terms of “belief”, I speak in terms of knowledge, data and information. I KNOW that Horace Mann’s advocacy of the Prussian model of public education had regimentation and militaristic intent in it’s application.

            And yes the proximate points of history of the development of the concept of such conditioning and regimentation of youth goes as far back as Plato’s ‘Republic’ and the ‘education’ of Sparta.

            There are no hard, pat rules in psychology that apply universally to every individual. Some people can be quite resilient while others are very fragile.
            I think it obvious that Oswald was resilient and adaptable, I think he is the victim of defamation. I don’t think he was an ‘outcast’, I think he desired a good amount of solitude, free thinkers often do.
            . . .
            Now Photon, you have ignored for long enough my request for your supposed documentation disputing Sherry Fiester’s work history as a crime scene investigator. If that is not forthcoming, and soon, I will have to conclude it is another of your scurrilous attempts at defamation.
            \\][//

          • The German philosopher Johann Fichte was a key contributor to the formation of the German school system. It was Fichte who said that the schools “must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will.”
            The German and Prussian education systems were identical.

            Again, anyone wishing an in depth understanding of what the Prussian “educational” system is all about can read; John Taylor Gatto, Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt and Antony Sutton. The source material they draw upon is in their works.
            \\][//

          • As I said, Photon would hand wave the issues and not answer my direct question which was, and I repeat:

            > What does it mean to be well adjusted to a pathological society?
            . . . .
            Of course the implications to the only rational answer to the question is what Photon desperately wishes to avoid.
            \\][//

    • Mayra Solloa says:

      To wait for a motorcade in delay about half an hour without being detected for anyone during both the getting ready and the waiting time.

  15. For the record here, I don’t think Oswald decided to kill JFK at any point, I think he was a patsy just as he claimed.
    I think there is a chance he was involved with the conspirators as a mole.
    I think that perhaps he had a professional relationship with officer Tippit, and that the two were involved in the same team infiltrating the Cuban Mercenary group and their handlers.
    The incident his landlady describes of a police car pulling up outside where he was boarding and honking on that day seems to indicate such a relationship between Tippit and Oswald.
    \\][//

  16. An interesting poser, but to ask ‘when’ is to beg the question of motive. Mr. Oswald, himself, would have to have had formulated the ideas of: 1) the necessity of ‘removing’ Mr. Kennedy, 2 )this by a violent act, and 3) with himself the instrument of action. All this without leaving a manifesto, without leaving a clear trail of correspondence over time, without going out in a blazing last stand, or without making defiant statements of purpose to the public. Without additional information, the when & why, by Mr. Oswald, alone, were and, will remain, murky.

    When Mr. Oswald made a last public announcement (and confession of sorts) that: “I am only a patsy.”; this would seem to indicate an awareness that he had willingly, but not necessarily knowingly at the time, participated in the assassination and that he was being set up as the fall guy, after the event.( At this point, in a common TV script, the prosecuting attorney, during the interrogation of the suspect, would say: “Tell me who put you up this and we might be able to work out a deal; else you’ll take all the heat and fry.” )

    The logic of the latter then leads one to ask if Mr. Oswald knew that he was a patsy and if this were even remotely possible (this before the Warren Commission irrevocably made him the sole perpetrator), then who else had the motive, means, and ability to plan, to carry out the plan, (including conceiving the use of utilizing Mr Oswald), and to follow up on the assassination of President Kennedy. Note: as a personal aside, if whatever happened in the Book Depository was deliberately meant to act as a distraction and to cause confusion (this to effect a clear firing field downstream ), then a lot of seemingly unrelated activities might make a lot of sense.

  17. Mark Wright says:

    I think he decided to kill JFK because he was there, driving right by the very building he was working in. What a great opportunity it was.

    Has history with Wallace treated to kill Nixon, he could not believe his luck. Once he knew that JFK was driving by nothing was going to stop him from shooting at him, not even of marina agreed to move into with him.

    As Jonathan says he was a sociopath with his life falling apart not knowing weather he wanted to stay in the USA return to Russia or go to Cuba. One mixed up Kid with a gun,.

    • Paulf says:

      Having fluctuating political loyalties is not sociopathic behavior.

      And if Oswald was so bent in one direction, and motivated by politics, why did he allegedly try to kill a right-wing general and a left-leaning president? Talk about irrational.

      There is no actual evidence against him, so his accusers just throw anything at the wall and hope it all sticks, no matter how contradictory it is.

      • JH 777 says:

        “There is no actual evidence against him, so his accusers just throw anything at the wall and hope it all sticks, no matter how contradictory it is.”

        ____________________________________________________________

        There is a huge amount of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald.
        There is no evidence that any one else was involved, only hearsay, speculation, factoids and disinformation.

        • David Regan says:

          Can you elaborate on this vast amount of evidence against LHO?

        • JH, I don’t need to know the names of those involved, I just need to see proof that LHO couldn’t have fired two shots in 1.5 seconds(the shots that many witnesses said came very close together). Unless LHO used a machine gun(and there is no evidence he did), someone else fired the other shot in that 1.5 seconds.

    • JH 777 says:

      Yes, good post I could not agree with you more. As Robert Oswald said “There were no conspiracy. It was a conspiracy of one. It was a happenstance of history”.

      He had the means, the motive, the oppurtunity and the mind of a political assassin and just by pure coincidence the JFK parade route passed by the TSD which he worked in. The motorcade route was announced on November 19th. It was some time after this that he got the idea to assassinate JFK, when exactly is a matter of speculation.

  18. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Hold on people. Let’s back up a minute. DPD Officer Marion Bakers initial report the night of 11/22/63, IMHO the most reliable and in turn accurate, mentions absolutely nothing about the second floor break room or a coke. It does mention someone on the 3rd or 4th floor Truly identified as an employee.
    Based on a lot of what else on this subject it’s entirely possible both Baker and Truly were coached with persuasion on their later statements.
    Truly I’ve read refused to talk about it with family or anyone else for the rest of his life.

  19. Bogman says:

    Not really an answer to this question but I saw an interesting segment on a show called “America Declassified” last night. They showed the view from behind the grassy knoll from Lee Bowers in the railroad tower. Using a rifle loaded with blanks, it was clear he could’ve seen smoke and a muzzle flash from his vantage point.

    Never saw anyone simulate that scenario. It was absolutely comvincing and chilling.

  20. leslie sharp says:

    Jean, given your reputation for meticulous research, where is the evidence that Oswald knew about the parade route? You can presume he read the paper, but you cannot prove that he read the newspaper. Many who allege Oswald was a lone assassin shove these presumptions between the gaps of concrete facts in an attempt to explain the case against him. Had any single supposition melted under close scrutiny during a trial, a prosecutor would have been left with a hole in the case against Oswald. As noted by Neil, James Jarman indicated that Oswald was not even aware that a parade was about to take place; you can argue that Jarman misinterpreted Oswald’s remarks, but why would you choose to do so? Why wouldn’t you accept Jarman’s account? Because it didn’t fit into your hypothesis that Oswald had read the newspaper – a seemingly obscure detail but one that is central to your argument that Oswald planned in advance to assassinate the president on 11.22.63.

    Prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Oswald knew the Kennedy parade would pass the TSBD. Without that proof, every allegation that his behavior the evening of the 21st and the morning of the 22nd is somehow proof that he spontaneously decided over a 24 hour period to assassinate John Kennedy is simply bogus. If he had known since the 19th, why would he have waited until the 21st to put the logistics in place? The assassination was either premeditated or it was spontaneous, but it was not both.

  21. David Regan says:

    It was never my belief Oswald fired a rifle on November 22, 1963, so I will approach this from another viewpoint.

    This video sums up when I believe his plotters may have finally agreed that JFK had to go. Check out ‘JFK: BUILDING PEACE FOR ALL TIME’ on Vimeo

  22. L says:

    Random pontification: I just finished Dick Russell’s book about Richard Case Nagell, and have come away with a much broader appreciation for who Ozwald was and what he was involved with up to his neck. He seems to have been a very complex character who is not easily “diagnosed” from the smattering of information that has come to light over the years about him. Numerous sources profess that he was highly fluent in Russian — so much so that his wife, when she first met him, believed he was a native of that country. As did Nagell, he moved around the globe a great deal and seemed to have contacts within Soviet, US, and Cuban intelligence organizations (as well as organized crime and the militant Cuban exile community) at one time or another. There was a lot going on there in the world of LHO in 1963. And nothing is as it appears to be on the surface, it seems to me.

  23. David Regan says:

    In terms of Oswald not being outside to watch the motorcade, shouldn’t we ask the same of Ruby?

    Given that Ruby knew the President was in town, and given that the Dallas Morning News offices were a close walk from Dealey Plaza, why had Ruby–if devoted to the President as he claimed–not bothered to go see him pass by? Ruby had dallied for hours in the offices of the DMN that morning – sounds like an alibi in the making to me.

    • bogman says:

      Great point. If the Warren Commission had looked at any other evidence pointing in any other direction but Oswald, we might not be typing these posts today.

    • Jean Hill just may have been right to say it was Ruby she saw running between the TSBD and the railroad yards shortly following the assassination. That Dallas FBI man Gordon Shanklin was quite livid with her responses to his questions….perhaps because Shanklin knew Hill was right.

    • Thomas says:

      Good point. We know he wound up at Parkland Hospital in fast order when Kennedy was there, strange behavior for a man that doesn’t even need to watch the motorcade.

      Same with Oswald actually. Why be in a lunch room eating when the motorcade drives by? There’s more to both stories than meets the eye.

    • Vanessa says:

      It’s particularly odd for a guy that is then so distraught over the President’s assassination that he spends days crying and then stalks and kills the supposed assassin.

      But couldn’t be bothered to actually see the President pass by. Yeah, that makes sense.

  24. Avinash says:

    “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand.” Chief Jesse Curry

  25. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Jean Davison
    January 14, 2015 at 3:27 pm
    When Shelley and Lovelady left the steps they first went to the traffic island directly across from the TSBD entrance to talk to Gloria Calvary, who ran up crying after seeing JFK get shot. They were still there when they saw Baker going inside. It’s not clear exactly how many minutes they stayed there before walking down to the railroad yards, probably not very long, but Oswald didn’t loiter in the Depository, either.

    Fritz’s notes don’t say that Oswald claimed to be out front with Shelley *during the shooting*. So far as I know there’s no record that anybody said that, not even Oswald.

    ———————————————————————

    Nice try, Jean, but you seem to be dodging the point I made; something you seem to be well trained at doing.

    The whole point of my argument is that, according to Fritz’s notes, Oswald was out in front with Bill Shelley PLUS on the 2nd floor drinking a Coke when Baker and Truly arrived on the 2nd floor.

    Shelley and Lovelady left the steps of the TSBD immediately after the shots were fired. How long they stopped to talk to Gloria calvary on the sidewalk is irrelevant, as Baker’s testimony, plus film evidence, shows him entering the TSBD within seconds of the assassination, and Lovelady and Shelley claimed they looked back to see Baker and Truly entering the TSBD as they were headed to the rail yard next to the Grassy Knoll.

    Either Oswald left the front steps before the assassination, or he ran ahead of Truly and Baker, and made it to the 6th floor just ahead of them. Or, as most people suspect, Fritz interjected the 2nd floor Coke incident into his interrogation notes (written a week after the interrogation) to bolster Baker’s revised edition of his first statement.

    That being said, when was Oswald “out in front with Bill Shelley”, or was this another one of Fritz’s lies? How can Oswald be out in front with Shelley, on the 2nd floor drinking a Coke, and shooting at JFK from the 6th floor, all at the same time?

    How did Oswald know Bill Shelley was out in front, if he was not there too?

  26. Bob Prudhomme says:

    “Mr. BALL – Who was with you?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
    Mr. BALL – What was that last name?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Stanton.
    Mr. BALL – What is the first name?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley.”

    “Mr. BALL – What did you hear?
    Mr. LOVELADY – I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn’t occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot.
    Mr. BALL – Who was this girl?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Gloria Calvary.
    Mr. BALL – Gloria Calvary?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Yes.”

    “Mr. BALL – When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Well, I asked who told her. She said he had been shot so we asked her was she for certain or just had she seen the shot hit him or–she said yes, she had been right close to it to see and she had saw the blood and knew he had been hit but didn’t know how serious it was and so the crowd had started towards the railroad tracks back, you know, behind our building there and we run towards that little, old island and kind of down there in that little street. We went as far as the first tracks and everybody was hollering and crying and policemen started running out that way and we said we better get back into the building, so we went back into the west entrance on the back dock had that low ramp and went into the back dock back inside the building.
    Mr. BALL – First of all, let’s get you to tell us whom you left the steps with.
    Mr. LOVELADY – Mr. Shelley.”

    “Mr. BALL – By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
    Mr. LOVELADY – As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.
    Mr. BALL – How many steps?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Twenty, 25.
    Mr. BALL – Steps away and you looked back and saw him enter the building?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Yes.”

    Shelley and Lovelady re-entered the TSBD through a door near the rear of the building, and never returned to the steps of the TSBD prior to Oswald leaving Dealey Plaza. If Oswald was out in front with Bill Shelley, it had to be prior to the shots being fired.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Notice, in the first piece of testimony above, how quickly Ball cuts Lovelady off as he attempts to tell the WC who was standing behind him on the steps.

      • David Regan says:

        That sort of questioning happens all throughout the WC Report, Bob. I’ve seen so many examples of abrupt changes in topic when the testimony is heading onto thin ice in support of the lone assassin predetermination.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Bob, there are many, many instances of the WC lawyers cutting short testimony, redirecting it, failing to ask the most critical of follow up questions, etc. I’m sure there is a legal term for the method but why apply it during what was ostensibly a balanced and benign investigation? Mr. Ball and Mr. Specter in particular were very skilled at guaranteeing that the testimony of key witnesses would align with the lone assassin theory; which leads back to the December 16, 1963 meeting when members of the commission convened for the first time. Former DCI Allen Dulles presented them with a small publication that argued historically (with only one or two exceptions) presidential assassinations and attempts were perpetrated by a lone, deranged individual. I wonder if the little book identified how frequently the lone assassin was carrying a handgun within feet of their victim?

        The scene in Oliver Stone’s “JFK” when Kevin Costner/Jim Garrison says “ask the question! ask the question!” must surely have been intended to inform the public that the efforts of the Warren Commission were flawed and must eventually be exposed. This forum offers that opportunity. I wonder if jfkfacts might stop the clock and focus on that single issue for an extended period?

      • Jean Davison says:

        Here’s the full transcript:
        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm

        Where do you see his testimony “cut short”? He had already said that the last time he saw Oswald was when he passed by him on the 5th floor while riding down in the elevator.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          I guess Lovelady just mixed his lines up. As I said, I’m surprised they didn’t supply a man with cue cards for the witnesses to follow.

        • leslie sharp says:

          “Mr. BALL – Who was with you?
          Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
          Mr. BALL – What was that last name?
          Mr. LOVELADY – Stanton.

          Jean, The exchange speaks for itself. But for the sake of argument, why would Lovelady’s earlier reference to ‘the last time he saw Oswald, preclude his naming who was on the steps behind him? You are putting thoughts into Mf. Ball’s head . . . “I don’t need to listen to Lovelady’s full recounting because I have what I need.”

          Lovelady’s testimony also begs the question: was Gloria Calvary called to testify before the WC? If not, would you venture an opinion as to why not? Didn’t she work for Warren Caster in the SouthWest(ern?) Publishing office? Mr. Caster was called to testify because of the rifle incident on Wednesday. Apparently someone on the commission deemed it a significant reason to talk to Mr. Caster, yet (unless I’m overlooking something), apparently they didn’t think it would be worthwhile to ask Ms. Calvary to testify. Do you find that curious?

        • “Where do you see his testimony “cut short”?”~Jean Davison

          For the umpteenth time! :
          “Mr. BALL – Who was with you?
          Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
          Mr. BALL – What was that last name?
          Mr. LOVELADY – Stanton.
          Mr. BALL – What is the first name?
          Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley.”

          Ball obviously cuts Lovelady off! And “right behind” Lovelady was WHO? Aren’t you in the slightest curious as to who he was about to say was right behind him? For some reason Ball didn’t want it said on record who was just behind him. Why might that be? I don’t know what Ball knew from other testimony he had taken, so I can’t even guess. But I will surmise that Ball did know who was just behind Lovelady and did not want that in the record.
          \\][//

  27. JH 777 says:

    ” How did Oswald know Bill Shelley was out in front, if he was not there too? ”

    _____________________________________________________________________

    A wild guess perhaps or he saw him on the way out.
    Another futile attempt from Oswald to establish an alibi.

    If Oswald had the audacious, malicious, intrepidness to shoot JFK,
    then an individual that displays such extreme characteristics which in this case is murder, then that individual will have no trouble denying any involvment in a murder(s) whilst being interrogated.
    It’s as simple as that.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Shelley had to be long gone by the time Oswald exited the front door of the TSBD, if Shelley’s testimony to the WC is true. According to Shelley’s testimony, he and Lovelady were on their way to the rail yard behind the Grassy Knoll when they looked back to see Baker and Truly entering the TSBD.

      A lucky guess? Dealey Plaza must have been a very lucky place that day, as so many amazing things seemed to have occurred within such a short period of time.

      You can slander Oswald’s character all you like, as I am sure you are convinced it will influence those new to the case but, we are dealing in facts here, and if a slanderous comment is the best you can do, please don’t bother responding to my comments, if you don’t mind.

      P.S. Dear Moderator: Did I do something amiss in the post where I quoted Bill Shelley’s testimony to the WC? Is that why it is awaiting moderation?

    • David Regan says:

      Enough with the generalities, JH 777. How about presenting some hard evidence with facts to support your theories?

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Hello JH777

      Oswald makes at least 3 wild guesses that day that turn out to be absolutely accurate. He guesses where Shelley was at the time of the assassination and he guesses where Junior Jarman and Harold Norman were even though he could not have seen any of these men at all from 11.55am – 12.33pm according to the WC version of events. That is some pretty good guessing.

      We know from the WC testimony of Charles Givens, Bonnie Rae Williams, Danny Arce, Harold Norman and James Jarman that they left Oswald on the 6th floor and went down to the 1st floor in a group at about 11.55am to get their lunches. They then went in various directions. Bonnie Rae Williams gets his lunch and goes back up to the 6th floor (and then the 5th floor), Charles Givens gets his lunch and proceeds down the street to view the motorcade with a friend from the corner of Main and Record Sts. Harold Norman and James Jarman eat their lunches on the 1st floor and then go outside. Danny Arce gets his lunch and eats it outside.

      Officially Oswald hasn’t seen any of these guys since 11.55am after they all went downstairs to the first floor. As far as he knows they are all outside the TSBD somewhere. So he could have nominated Charles Givens or Danny Arce as someone he has seen. But he doesn’t because Givens was down the street out of sight and Arce was on the sidewalk with his back to the TSBD steps. Who else does Oswald nominate as someone he was with at the time of the shooting? “Junior” and a “short, negro boy”. He doesn’t know their names but he nominates them as witnesses. Why?

      Jarman and Norman met on the 1st floor and then came out the front entrance of the TSBD, went down the steps, stood on Elm St sidewalk for a while and then decided to go back into the building up to the 5th floor at 12.20 – 12.25pm.

      Jarman and Norman want to go back into the building but they can’t because there are too many people standing on the TSBD stairway (see below). From the Weigman film we know that there is an unidentified person standing in the top left hand corner of the TSBD behind the door (the TSBD door opens outwards). According to Shelley’s WC testimony he was standing on the top landing of the steps. We know the guy in the corner is not Shelley because Shelley is wearing a white shirt and tie and the guy in the corner is not wearing a tie and has a dark shirt on. There were a number of other people standing on the steps themselves. To get past the two men on the top landing, Jarman and Norman would have to squeeze past Shelley to open the door and then possibly squash the guy in the corner as they hold the door open and go through it. But they’ve had a look and think there are too many people standing on the steps and decide to go around the building instead.

      Mr. BALL – You didn’t go through and cross the first floor?
      Mr. JARMAN – No, sir; there was too many people standing on the stairway so we decided to go around.
      Mr. BALL – You went in the back door?
      Mr. JARMAN – Right.

      So why does Oswald name Norman and Jarman as witnesses? Because when they turn around and look at the steps he sees them do it and he thinks they have seen him too. In other words, Oswald manages to wildly guess the only two people who have had the opportunity to see him on the steps as his alibi.

      The fact is, Oswald hasn’t guessed Shelley’s or Jarman’s or Norman’s locations at all. He has specifically named three men that he has seen. And it’s irrelevant that they claim not to have seen him. He saw them, when according to the WC he could not have done so.

  28. Bob Prudhomme says:

    It should be quite obvious, Jean, that Lovelady and Shelley were not out at the island when Gloria Calvary came running up with the news of the assassination. Rather, according to their testimonies, they were on the steps when she came back with the news, and only headed out to the island, and then the rail yard, AFTER they had pressed Ms. Calvary for details of the shooting.

    It should also be quite obvious, to any thinking person, there are some serious timing issues here. Baker, according to the official story, ran into the TSBD seconds after the last shot was fired, and can be seen doing so in the Couch film. If Lovelady and Shelley were telling the truth to the WC, how did Gloria Calvary beat Baker to the steps of the TSBD, if she was “down near where the car was when the President was hit”? How could Shelley and Lovelady possibly have had time to question her about the shooting and be 25 steps down Elm St. when they looked back to see Baker and Truly entering the TSBD?

    • Jean Davison says:

      Bob,

      I think you’re right that there are “timing issues,” but the important point IMO is that Oswald himself said he was inside the building when the President was shot.

      Do you or Vanessa have any evidence that Oswald ever claimed he was “out front with Bill Shelley” *during* the shooting? Isn’t that based entirely on your interpretation of Fritz’s cryptic notes? That’s not what Fritz or anyone else at the interrogations ever said in their testimony or reports, so far as I know, but if I’m wrong, show me.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        It’s a sad tale, Jean, but, you and I both know Fritz’s notes were not written at the time of Oswald’s interrogation. The fact of the matter is, they were written at least a week later.

        Why were they written in what you call a “cryptic” fashion, when Fritz had all the time in the world to write out nice neat notes in long hand? I believe Fritz was making a great effort to make his notes appear to be hurriedly written while the interrogation was going on.

        Oswald was answering a flurry of questions from reporters and, contrary to what you say, not once did Oswald say he was “inside” the TSBD at the time of the shooting. He stated to reporters that he worked “in” that building, and when asked if he was “in” the building “at the time”, he responded by saying yes. However, this does not place him on the 6th floor, nor does it place him inside of the TSB, as he may very well have considered the vestibule to be “in” the building.

        Timing is everything in this case, and I do not blame you for wishing to diminish its importance.

        Shelley and Lovelady are lying in their testimony to the WC, plain and simple. According to Shelley’s testimony, they stayed on the steps of the TSBD for at least a minute doing nothing. Shelley then states that Gloria Calvary came running up to the steps shouting that the President had been shot. Further, according to Shelley, he and Lovelady ran out to “that little old island” and stayed there a minute. While they were out at the island, they turned back to see Baker and Truly entering the TSBD.

        Sounds good, until we watch the Couch film, and see Baker running into the TSBD mere seconds after the last shot was fired. It is hard to understand how Lovelady and Shelley determined Truly accompanied Baker, as Baker storms into the TSBD on his own. Maybe someone told them to say this? Anyways, to be in position on that “little old island”, Lovelady and Shelley have even less time to get over there, from the steps, than Baker had to run into the TSBD; otherwise they could not look back from the island to see him enter the TSBD. To make matters worse, Gloria Calvary was standing beside the Stemmons Freeway sign when JFK was fatally shot. Before Shelley and Lovelady could leave the steps, according to their testimony, Ms. Calvary had to come running up to the steps with the news. Bill Shelley states all of this very clearly in his testimony to the WC:

        “Mr. BALL – Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
        Mr. SHELLEY – It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.
        Mr. BALL – She ran back up to the door and you had still remained standing there?
        Mr. SHELLEY – Yes.
        Mr. BALL – Going to watch the rest of the parade were you?
        Mr. SHELLEY – Yes.”

        You see, Shelley and Lovelady did not run out to the island to meet Ms. Calvary; according to Shelley, they stayed on the steps for 3 or 4 minutes before Ms. Calvary arrived at the steps with the news.

        How, then, could Shelley and Lovelady have looked back to see Truly and Baker entering the TSBD seconds after the last shot was fired if they didn’t leave the steps for 3 or 4 minutes, and only after Ms. Calvary had run back up to the steps from the Stemmons sign? I know the answer to this question, and it has a lot to do with Fritz’s “cryptic” notation “out in front with Bill Shelley”. As I said before, this whole case hinges on timing, and who is telling the truth and who is not telling the truth, about their own personal timing, and how careful examination of films years later has given away these lies. If you’re interested, Ms. Davison, I’ll share the answer with you. I seriously doubt you’ll be surprised, though.

      • Vanessa says:

        Hi Jean

        Fritz’s WC testimony confirms that Oswald said he was with other employees and saw the ‘excitement’. How do you interpret Fritz’s statement other than Oswald said he was with other workers at the time and that he saw the assassination?

        Mr Ball: Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
        Mr Fritz: Yes, sir.
        Mr Ball: What did he say?
        Mr Fritz: Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement..

        Both men are specifically referring to where Oswald said he was at the time of the assassination. Shelley was one of the employees Oswald was with.

        I’ve got a more detailed comment on Oswald’s alibi but it’s still going through moderation issues – it’s a bit wordy.

        BTW Oswald did not say he was ‘inside’ the building he said he was ‘in that building’ because he works there. It’s a different emphasis. If he was standing on the top landing of the TSBD steps and went inside seconds later maybe he just considered himself to be in the building.

        At the time Oswald made that statement he did not seem to be aware that the DPD suspected the shooting happened from the 6th floor. It doesn’t appear from Fritz’s Report of the interrogation, WC testimony or Fritz’s notes that Oswald was told that they suspected a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

        So in his mind if he’s in a building at the time of the assassination how could he have shot the President? He probably thinks it’s exculpatory.

      • Jean Davison says:

        Bob (and Vanessa),

        I agree that “when asked if he was “in” the building “at the time”, [Oswald] responded by saying yes.” He didn’t say, “No, I was outside with Bill Shelley.” If the vestibule wasn’t “in” the TSBD, where was it? (Not that he ever mentioned the vestibule, so far as we know.)

        Here’s that Oswald clip again:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbR6vHXD1j0

        I agree, Fritz’s notes were written later — he said so in his testimony.

        Shelley and Lovelady didn’t have to be lying to give inaccurate testimony — witnesses often do. (How many minutes after breakfast did I read the newspaper this morning? I’d have to guess.) I don’t think it really matters when they saw Baker.

        The record shows that Oswald said he ate lunch in the first floor lunchroom in the rear of the building. Without x-ray vision he couldn’t have seen any
        “excitement” outside.

        • Vanessa says:

          Hi Jean

          Unfortunately, the record is a bit contradictory on what Oswald said – he’s either in the lunch room or on the steps. And Fritz’s WC testimony (‘he saw the excitement’)seems to confirm that he said he was on the steps because as you say he couldn’t have seen anything from the lunchroom.

          If the senior police officer of the DPD hadn’t called the assassination of the President ‘the excitement’ and instead perhaps called it ‘the tragedy’ or even just ‘the shooting’ we would not be having this trouble at all.

          In the same way Oswald’s lack of clarity over being ‘in that building’ or inside the building is not helpful.

          Shelley’s claim about lingering at the traffic island for minutes is actually significant. In the official version of events it does give Oswald an opportunity to see him and thus account for Shelley’s name turning up in Fritz’s notes.

          If the WC don’t give Oswald an opportunity to see Shelley at all then what is Shelley’s name doing in Fritz’s notes at all. And particularly so close to the question of where was Oswald at the time of the assassination.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Vanessa,

          “Unfortunately, the record is a bit contradictory on what Oswald said – he’s either in the lunch room or on the steps.”

          No, it’s not contradictory. There’s no record of anyone saying that Oswald claimed he was outside during the shooting — that is only your interpretation, Vanessa. They instead report that he said he was having lunch on the first floor.

          Even Oswald said he was inside the building, and yet many conspiracy theorists refuse to believe him. It boggles the mind.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Hello Jean

            It’s not my interpretation. It’s based on Fritz’s WC testimony about how Oswald ‘saw’ the excitement. How do you account for that statement by Fritz?

            I understand your point about Oswald’s statements about bineg in that building.

            But that has to be balanced against the evidence from Fritz and Shelley’s name appearing in Fritz’s notes. How did Oswald know that Shelley was outside at the time of the assassination?

          • Jean Davison says:

            It’s still your interpretation of Fritz’s words, Vanessa, not what Fritz actually said. He may’ve been referring to the excitement inside the building. Didn’t he see a cop rush in with a gun in his hand?

            QUOTE:
            Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn’t think–I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that “I didn’t think there would be any work done that afternoon…”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=13421

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Okay Jean

            But Fritz and Ball are referring specifically to where was Oswald “when this happened” ie the assassination. They are not discussing where was Oswald when the police officer came in. These are 2 separate incidents that are generally treated separately by the WC – one followed the other.

            Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
            Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
            Mr. BALL. What did he say?
            Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn’t think–I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that “I didn’t think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don’t punch a clock and they don’t keep very close time on our work and I just left.”
            (emphasis added)

            Fritz refers to 2 lots of excitement here. 1) When this (the assassination) happened Oswald saw all the excitement and 2) “I also asked him why he left the building and he said there was so much excitement there then..”

            One lot of excitement happening at the time of the assassination and one lot happening after.

            If Fritz meant the excitement that happened when the police officer came into the 2nd floor lunch room wouldn’t he have said something like this “Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened. Then after that he saw all the excitement.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Vanessa,

            You’re assuming that Fritz remembered precisely what Oswald told him and that Oswald told him the truth.

            Again, Oswald is on tape saying he was inside the building at the time of the shooting. That settles it, as far as I’m concerned. Shall we agree to disagree?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            I’m happy to agree to disagree although frankly I think we were just getting to the best bit. 🙂

            I’m not assuming that Oswald is telling the truth. I’m saying that Oswald’s knowledge of Shelley’s whereabouts proves that Oswald was telling the truth and Fritz’s notes and WC testimony confirm that.

            Oswald does not say he was ‘inside’ the building. He said that he was in that building because he works there. It’s a different emphasis.

        • “Unfortunately, the record is a bit contradictory on what Oswald said – he’s either in the lunch room or on the steps. And Fritz’s WC testimony (‘he saw the excitement’)seems to confirm that he said he was on the steps because as you say he couldn’t have seen anything from the lunchroom.”

          There is no contradiction here Vanessa, Oswald said he was eating in the lunchroom. Period.
          As far as the excitement coming into the building, of course Oswald would have heard it while in the lunchroom. People were surely yelling in and out of the building.
          The Truly–Baker testimonies are some of the least ambiguous of any in this whole case. And it is utterly exculpable.
          \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Willy

            Are you really sure you want to get into a discussion with me again? 🙂 You did not enjoy it much last time and I guarantee you are going to enjoy it even less this time :). Because I’m going to say something a bit controversial here – the Truly/Baker and Oswald encounter never happened on the second floor lunchroom at all – ever. It happened on the steps of the TSBD or just inside the doors. Now, before you blow a gasket, please take the time to read the thread on this issue at CTKA at this link. It lays it all out very clearly and logically. And if it’s true, exonerates Oswald of the assassination completely.

            http://www.ctka.net/2014/Prayer%20man.html

            Also, I’d like to make the point that there are two areas in the TSBD where employees ate lunch. The second floor lunchroom and the first floor Domino room. It appears that the first floor Domino room was (how can I put this delicately?) where the black employees hung out and the second floor lunchroom is where the whites were. Oswald often had his lunch down in the Domino room and played dominoes with the black employees.

            If you’re still prepared to talk to me after having a read of Sean Murphy’s research then I’m happy to oblige. 🙂

          • Vanessa,
            Is “Prayerman” definitely Oswald?
            If you clickthe heels of your ruby slippers together three times and repeat “I have magic eyes” … sure!
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hello Willy

            Did you actually read the thread? If so, how about some factual analysis, Scarecrow man? 🙂

  29. Fact:
    Lee Harvey Oswald’s legal status is; “the accused assassin”, he was never proven guilty in a court of law. This stands for both the assassination of President Kennedy, and the murder of Officer Tippit.
    \\][//

    • JH 777 says:

      Now that is a fact. If Jack Ruby had not of taken the law into his own hands and commited a murderous and suicidal act which Lee Oswald also done then the “accused assassin” would of had his day in court, and convicted of the crimes of the asassination of JFK, the malicious murder of Officer J.D Tippit, the wounding of Governor Connally, the attempted murder of General Edwin Walker,
      and assault and attempted murder of Officer Nick McDonald.

      • “..the “accused assassin” would of had his day in court, and convicted of the crimes of the asassination of JFK…”~JH 777

        And that is NOT a fact it is merely your assumption, the projection of all of your misconceptions drawn from the Warren Commission Report.
        \\][//

        • JH 777 says:

          And that is NOT a fact it is merely your assumption, the projection of all of your misconceptions drawn from the Warren Commission Report.
          ____________________________________________________

          If you would take the time to read the post it states that “Now that is a fact” the fact that I am referring to is in agreement to your post which was this :

          “Fact:
          Lee Harvey Oswald’s legal status is; “the accused assassin”, he was never proven guilty in a court of law. This stands for both the assassination of President Kennedy, and the murder of Officer Tippit.” ~Whitten
          \\][//

          Now the latter part of my post is what would of happened if Jack Ruby had not have shot Lee Oswald.
          Comprende ?…. Unless of course once AGAIN YOU THINK you have some pertinent information which you would like to share with the public which again would be drawn from erroneous conjecture, AND NOTHING ELSE.

          • Yes of course JH 777, that is understood; that you were agreeing with me that it is a fact that Oswald is merely “the accused” and was never convicted.
            What I and others have attempted to point out to you is that your assertion that had Oswald lived and there had been a trial, that the evidence would have convicted him as guilty as charged: THAT sir, is empty conjecture and nothing else. That can be termed ‘Revisionist History Fantasy Science Fiction’.
            No one has the prescience to “predict” what might have happened if history were changed, regardless of subject matter.

            You ask for “pertinent information”. That pertinent information has been shared on this page by many on this page. If you are contending that there is no legitimate controversy on this subject, that you are certain that the evidence itself would have convicted Oswald, you are plainly relying purely on conjecture.
            Oswald may have been convicted had he lived and stood trial, but my firm opinion is that if that would have been the case it would be because he was railroaded by the system – just like he, and we have been railroaded by the system in everything of substance to do with this case.
            \\][//

      • Jonathan says:

        This is an assertion not a statement of fact:

        “… then the “accused assassin” would of had his day in court, and convicted of the crimes of the asassination of JFK, the malicious murder of Officer J.D Tippit, the wounding of Governor Connally, the attempted murder of General Edwin Walker,
        and assault and attempted murder of Officer Nick McDonald.”

  30. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Never. Whoever shot from the “snipers nest”, at JFK, Connally, or as a distraction, did so on orders from others.

  31. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Jean

    I believe the problem here goes way beyond Shelley and Lovelady making a few honest mistakes, and giving inaccurate testimony. Let us take a close look at a few inescapable facts related to their testimony.

    INESCAPABLE FACTS

    1. According to Shelley’s and Lovelady’s testimony, both Shelley and Lovelady stayed on the steps of the TSBD, until Gloria Calvary came up the street to them with news of the shooting. According to Lovelady’s testimony, they asked several questions of her before leaving the steps for “that little old island” across the street from the steps. In Shelley’s testimony, he estimates 3-4 minutes elapsed before they were able to speak to Ms. Calvary. Lovelady estimates 3 minutes from the last shot until Ms. Calvary’s arrival. The important fact here is they did NOT leave the steps before she arrived.

    2. Gloria Calvary had taken up a position within a few feet of the Stemmons Freeway sign to watch the motorcade pass by, and likely witnessed most of if not all of the shooting. Following the final shot, she did not immediately return to the steps of the TSBD, but, rather, is seen loitering in the vicinity of the Stemmons freeway sign for 1-2 minutes (see Robin Unger Photo Gallery).

    3. Officer Marion Baker, who was riding his motorcycle on Houston St., immediately after the first shot was fired raced his motorcycle to the front of the TSBD, parked his motorcycle 45 feet from the entrance to the TSBD and ran up to the TSBD steps and entered the TSBD. Time estimates, based on the Malcolm Couch film, have him entering the front door of the TSBD just over 20 seconds after the third shot was fired. Superintendent Roy Truly followed Baker into the TSBD, immediately behind him.

    4. Both Shelley and Lovelady testified they had left the steps of the TSBD, and were on their way to the rail yards west of the TSBD, when they looked back and saw Baker and Truly entering the TSBD. According to Lovelady’s testimony, they were 25 steps away from the steps of the TSBD when this happened.

    *continued next post to get under 500 word limit*

    • I have not had time to join in on the discussion as per Oswald’s encounter with Truly and officer Baker. I shall give a contribution now:

      Baker and Truly confront Oswald in the small vestibule with the Coke machines…

      “When they reached the second-floor landing on their way up to the top of the building, Patrolman Baker thought he caught a glimpse of someone through the small glass window in the door separating the hall area near the stairs from the small vestibule leading into the lunchroom. Gun in hand, he rushed to the door…..” ( Report, Chap. 1, pg. 5 )

      As they ran up the stairs, Truly was in front of Baker. Truly’s testimony that he did not see anyone entering the vestibule seems to indicate that Oswald entered it from a different direction.

      >
      Mr. BELIN. Now when you say you ran on to your left, did you look straight ahead to see whether there was anyone in that area, or were you intent on just going upstairs?
      > Mr. TRULY. If there had been anybody in that area, I would have seen him on the outside.

      For Baker to have caught a “glimpse” of Oswald in the vestibule from the bottom of the stairs, as the Commission claims he did, Oswald had to have entered it from either the office area or the hallway and thus COULD NOT HAVE DESCENDED FROM THE SIXTH FLOOR VIA THE REAR STAIRS.
      See more detail here:

      http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/lunchroom_encounter.htm

      \\][//

      • Reconstructing this scene as per testimonies; Baker saw someone in the vestibule through the small glass window in the door from the hallway. Truly testifies that if anyone had been in the hallway moments before, he would have seen him go through that door. The only alternative route to the vestibule is from the lunchroom. up a short flight of steps. Oswald was therefore eating in the lunchroom as per his testimony, and had gone to fetch a Coke for the meal he was having. The lunchroom is on the second floor. The snipers nest is on the sixth. For Oswald to have come down four flights of stairs from the snipers nest is an impossible feat given the timeline of Bakers entry into the building. The “nest” was enclosed and had to be squirmed out of, another round had been chambered in the rifle, it was then hidden among boxes heavy with books, that he would have to move to get through to the spot the rifle was hidden, he would have had to then replaced the heavy boxes before finally exiting and taking the stairs down. This is simply an impossible.
        \\][//

  32. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Now, Jean, anyone with an IQ over room temperature can see there is a problem here, and that that somebody, or a couple of somebodies, are not telling the truth.

    I am aware that the true believers and WC apologists love to believe many witnesses in Dealey Plaza had a bad case of “mis-remembering” that day but, there is a limit as to how far the human imagination can be stretched.

    I am willing two consider that two men can possibly confuse a few seconds time with 3-4 minutes, though I am most definitely not convinced it is at all possible. Shelley and Lovelady, if they were walking, would have to leave the steps at the very second the last shot was fired, if they are to be where they claimed they were when Baker entered the TSBD, BUT, this is not what they testified they did. Baker estimated his time, confirmed by WC tests, from the time of the 1st shot, not the last shot. The WC tests show that Baker would have been entering the TSBD about the same time Oswald was allegedly stashing his rifle.

    What I am not willing to consider is that Shelley and Lovelady could both “mis-remember” Gloria Calvary, who lingered quite some time down by the Stemmons Freeway sign following the last shot, coming to them while they stood on the steps of the TSBD, and relaying the news of JFK being shot; a fact they were ignorant of until her arrival. She was, after all, the impetus that sent them down to the rail yard to see what had happened. If they truly spoke to Gloria Calvary, while they stood on the steps, they could not have looked back at the TSBD and seen Baker entering the TSBD.

    Their stories are full of holes, and there is no way they can be telling the truth.

    The question is, WHY are they lying?

  33. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From Vanessa:

    “Shelley’s claim about lingering at the traffic island for minutes is actually significant. In the official version of events it does give Oswald an opportunity to see him and thus account for Shelley’s name turning up in Fritz’s notes.”

    Hi Vanessa

    If you go back and read Shelley’s testimony carefully, you will find he makes no claim about “lingering at the traffic island for minutes” but, rather, testifies he and Lovelady remained on the steps of the TSBD for 3-4 minutes following the last shot, and did not leave the steps until Gloria Calvary had returned, from down by the Stemmons sign, to tell them about the assassination.

    The WC apologists started this false story about Shelley and Lovelady lingering at the traffic island to cover up the glaring lies in Shelley’s and Lovelady’s testimonies, and the impossibility of them looking back at the TSBD and seeing Baker and Truly entering the building.

    Why do you think Shelley and Lovelady lied to the Warren Commission?

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Hi there Bob

      Well, you are right and it’s even clearer from Lovelady’s testimony. Thanks for that clarification.

      Of course I would never say that any witnesses to the Commission lied, Bob.  But their evidence is certainly completely inconsistent with the Weigman film which shows them trotting off down the street straightaway after the shots and not stopping anywhere.

      I still hold to my first argument though that the ‘inconsistency’ is due to there being a need for the WC to give Oswald an opportunity to see Shelley after the assassination as it accounts for Shelley’s name appearing in Fritz’s notes and Bookhout’s report claiming that he spoke to Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes.

      So why do you think Shelley’s and Lovelady’s testimony is er…inconsistent?

      PS Bob – there is no call for speaking to Jean like that. We might be on different sides of the debate but she is always civil and hasn’t denigrated you. So show a bit of that wholesome decency you Canadians are so renowned for. 

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Hi Vanessa

        Fritz’s notes cannot be looked upon as an accurate record of Oswald’s interrogation, for the simple fact he did not write them while the interrogation was taking place. Rather, they were written a week later, and the fact there was an attempt by him to make his notes look “hurried” should make this person highly suspect in anyone’s books.

        Why would the WC need to give Oswald an opportunity to see Shelley on the front steps of the TSBD, by having Fritz include “out in front with Bill Shelley” in his notes? To prove Oswald left the TSBD? I should think it hardly worthwhile to perjure a couple of witnesses, simply to establish Oswald left the building. His presence at the Texas Theatre is sufficient for that.

        No, the reason for Shelley’s and Lovelady’s “inconsistencies”, as you call them, is the fact that Victoria Adams claimed she heard the 3rd shot, and she and Sandra Styles ran down the stairs from the 4th floor of the TSBD to the main floor. She became a major thorn in the side of the WC when she claimed she saw Shelley and Lovelady on the 1st floor, on her way out to the Houston St. dock.

        Two things Ms. Adams did not see or hear, on her way down the stairs, were 1) Officer Baker and Roy Truly going up the stairs and 2) Lee Harvey Oswald going down the stairs.

        Shelley and Baker testifying to the impossible, that they remained on the steps of the TSBD for 3-4 minutes following the 3rd shot, makes it possible for the WC to throw serious doubt on Ms. Adams story of leaving the 4th floor immediately after the last shot.

        • Vanessa says:

          Thanks for that Bob – that does make a lot of sense.

          BTW I understand the point you are making about Fritz’s notes being unreliable. But I’m inclined to think that, in the same way that Fritz was too revealing in his WC testimony about where Oswald said he was, Fritz also inadvertently told the truth by putting Shelley’s name in his notes.

          As you say, the notes were done a week after the assassination. Maybe Fritz hadn’t realised the significance of Shelley’s whereabouts at that stage??

      • David Regan says:

        Vanessa/Bob,

        In two affidavits to the FBI, Vickie Adams made no mention of having seen Bill Shelley or Billy Lovelady when she reached the first floor of the School Book Depository.
        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1317&relPageId=662

        This contradicts an interview report from 2/17/64, where Detective Leavelle states that Vickie Adams reported having seen “Mr. Shelley and another employee named Bill” when she got down to the first floor. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3376-001.gif

        She has also challenged the accuracy of her WC testimony claiming she had not encountered Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor as it states. She also claims that she never waived her right to review her testimony as the transcript states.

        • Vanessa says:

          Thanks for this David. Can I ask what is your view on where Shelley and Lovelady actually were when Vicki Adams ‘saw’ them on the 1st floor?

  34. Jesse Hemingway says:

    They found LHO in a theater built by Howard Hughes. LOL

  35. Jesse Hemingway says:

    I will save a lot of people there sanity on this one fact lets call it the single fact theory. The entire United States Government version of the execution of President John F. Kennedy relies on the integrity and character of one person. In Executive Order 11130 “The purpose of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation….”

    How many people lives did J. Edgar Hoover devastate for the same abnormal behavior he enjoyed in covert; as the Director of the FBI?

    This friend is the only true acid test for integrity and character of J. Edgar Hoover and he failed the test miserable. Yes it took many years before his extremely private cravings were exposed.

    So J. Edgar Hoover the keeper of the evidence, yes the person that is the lynch pin to the entire United States Government version of JFK’s execution. Is a complete fraud of the highest order; so please people keep vomiting back the facts the good old facts.

    Ira Jesse Hemingway

    • Jesse Hemingway says:

      News Flash page 174 warren commission report more disinformation by the United States government. When picking up the 38 cal pistol at the post office where is the receipt for the COD transaction from the post office? The post office HAD to receive $19.95 + $1.27 = $21.22 either in cash which would have been converted into postal money order. Or some other form of payment that would generate a receipt.

      That is not to mention the specific laws for storing pistols at post offices that were omitted from this fine United States Government document.

  36. Bob Prudhomme says:

    BTW, Vanessa, speaking to Jean like what? Would you mind pointing out the post I treated her badly in?

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Hi Bob

      I think it’s the comment 2 above this one where you said “Now, Jean, anyone with an IQ over room temperature can see there is a problem here, and that that somebody, or a couple of somebodies, are not telling the truth”.

      There’s just no need for that type of comment at all, is there. I know we all get frustrated and I have sworn at Willy myself but we really should try to do better… shouldn’t we? 🙂

      And especially the Canadians as they have their international reputation for niceness to uphold. :)

    • John R says:

      I have no right to criticize, but I believe she is referring to “…anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature…”

    • leslie sharp says:

      Have I missed an update related to the moderation of this site? My understanding is that we are guests of the owner/host and that he (or his staff) is responsible for enforcing the guide lines. Have hall monitors been installed?

      • leslie sharp says:

        John R. apologies, My comment was intended as support to Bob.

        • Vanessa says:

          Hi Leslie

          Of course you are right. It’s not my role to do any sort of policing. We already have a lovely moderator who does that job perfectly. 🙂

          Please be assured that I have absolute respect for Bob and his views. My comments were in no way intended as an attack. My apologies to you Bob, if I have caused any offence.

          However, the point I would make is that one of Jeff’s rules is that we should be civil and I think that implying that someone’s IQ is not higher than room temperature cannot really be called that. But I have done worse myself so I stand corrected. All I’m trying to say is that we should let the strength of our arguments do the talking and refrain from the personal attacks.

  37. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Never. Who ever shot from wherever was doing so under orders.
    No decision to it.

  38. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Jean Davison
    January 22, 2015 at 10:55 am
    Achim,

    “Oswald was on his way to a second-floor lunchroom encounter with Dallas policeman Marrion Baker and Depository manager Roy Truly, who had come up those same stairs from the first floor. Yet Miss Adams had seen and heard no one.”

    That’s one reason the WC concluded that she wasn’t on the stairs when Oswald was. She should’ve run into Truly/Baker on their way up just as he did, but she didn’t see or hear them.

    https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=73578

    ———————————————————–

    Ah, the old “she didn’t hear or see anyone so that proves she wasn’t there” argument.

    Thanks, Jean. I always like to start my day with a good laugh. 🙂

  39. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Jean Davison
    January 22, 2015 at 10:44 am
    Vanessa,

    You’re assuming that Fritz remembered precisely what Oswald told him and that Oswald told him the truth.

    Again, Oswald is on tape saying he was inside the building at the time of the shooting. That settles it, as far as I’m concerned. Shall we agree to disagree?

    ———————————————————————

    Jean

    Please show me the tape where Oswald says he was “inside the building at the time of the shooting”.

  40. J.D. says:

    The strongest argument against Oswald’s involvement in the crime is that no one has ever established a plausible motive.

    The theory that he did it for political reasons is severely weakened by the fact that he denied doing it. It could be argued that Oswald lost his cool after being arrested and decided to deny everything in a desperate attempt to save himself, but the Oswald we see on film seems calm and collected.

    Furthermore, it’s hard to understand what political reasons Oswald might have had for killing the president. John Kennedy was not General Walker, and the Warren Commission found at least six witnesses who had heard Oswald praising the president. Oswald seems to have admired Kennedy’s civil rights policies in particular.

    The only remotely plausible motive is that Oswald may have been angered by Kennedy’s Cuban policies, but it strains credibility that Oswald would have suddenly changed his mind about the president at the end of 1963 after apparently continuing to admire him throughout the Bay of Pigs, the missile crisis, and the various sabotage raids against Castro’s regime. Furthermore, during his final interrogation on November 24, Oswald said that President Johnson’s “views about Cuba would probably be largely the same as those of President Kennedy.” (Not true, as it turned out, but Oswald can be excused for not knowing that.)

    The only other plausible reason is that Oswald was simply an unstable person who did it for no comprehensible reason. Despite Oswald’s occasionally odd behavior, however, there is no reason to think that he was mentally unbalanced. The Warren Report did not even argue this. The 1953 psychiatric evaluation of Oswald is often casually cited as proof that he was a “sociopath,” but the report only states that he demonstrates “schizoid features,” meaning only that he was solitary and prone to elaborate private fantasies (a verdict that renders him little different from millions of other 13-year-olds). This is a significantly different verdict than sociopathy, which is characterized by extreme antisocial behavior and an inability to empathize with others. In any event, an assessment of the 13-year-old Oswald does not necessarily have much to tell us about the adult Oswald, and the psychiatric profession has come a long way since 1953.

    It is also hard to put much faith in any of the vague psychological motives advanced in the Warren Report. Oswald never expressed any desire to “find a place in history,” and his supposed “resentment of all authority” is hard to reconcile with the fact that he spent several years in the Marines, voluntarily defected to the Soviet Union, and claimed to admire Fidel Castro (and, for that matter, President Kennedy).

    The only real evidence against Oswald is circumstantial: he was in the building at the time of the shooting, his exact location when the shots were fired remains unknown, and his behavior following the shooting is suspicious. But I know of no credible explanation for why he would have decided to shoot the president.

    • Paulf says:

      Amen, J.D.

      The motive aspect of the WC has all the elements of “throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.”

      He’s a nut– but he made it through the Marines, learned Russian somehow and defected twice. That’s all a bit complicated for a crazy person.

      He hated Kennedy? But he also shot at someone on the other side of the political spectrum, supposedly.

      He wanted fame. Evidence for this is? Then he denied what he allegedly did for the sake of fame.

      None of that would stand in a court. Any prosecutor using those allegations would have to offer some proof, for which there was none. And Oswald would be able to present his side. The lack of a case against him was why he had to be killed.

  41. “..the psychiatric profession has come a long way since 1953.”~J.D.

    Yes, all the way to guiding torture sessions at Guantanamo. Not such a giant leap if one knows the history of this pseudoscience.
    \\][//

  42. Nell says:

    This is going to be a very silly question, but here goes. I’ve read several accounts saying that Oswald never drank any kind of soft drink except Dr. Pepper. I’ve also read that there were two soft drink machines in the book depository, on different floors, one dispensing Coca Colas, the other Dr. Peppers. Why was he on the floor near the Coke machine, sipping a Coke when confronted by the cop, when his preference in soft drinks had always been Dr. Pepper? If he was completely innocent, he’d have been sipping a Dr. Pepper and been near the dispensing machine, right? So, he’d have been on another floor, not the one he was discovered on.

    • “This is going to be a very silly question, but here goes. I’ve read several accounts saying that Oswald never drank any kind of soft drink except Dr. Pepper.”~Nell

      Do you have source on this Dr. Pepper info?

      I’ll tell you, I might prefer Mountain Dew to other soft drinks, but if convenience is more the issue, which it is at times, drinking a cola or other soda wouldn’t be a life or death issue. And it certainly isn’t a strong enough point to rebuke the entire testimony on.
      \\][//

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Did you know Dr. Sidney Gottlieb ? Have you ever taken LSD?

  43. Jesse Hemingway says:

    If you look at all the pictures of “Oswald” there are at least two different people. A very simple analysis look at the corner of the eyes then makes a line across to the ears. How much of the ear is above that line or below it is as good as a finger print.

    Yes Yes the United States Government has entered two different people as “Oswald” for their evidence in the warren commission report.

    Check it out!

    • Jesse Hemingway, perhaps a crash course on photogrammetry is in order before you become an expert forensic photo analyst.
      Something as simple as the height of the camera, shooting from below, or from above a subject even slightly, is going to change that horizontal line drawn from the eye to the ear. The type of lens comes into play as well. Anytime you try to measure a flat representation of a 3D object you are going to have to take vector coordinates into account.
      \\][//

      • Jesse Hemingway says:

        Please explain in 1950’s technology

      • Jesse Hemingway says, “Please explain in 1950’s technology”..

        This question would be applicable if we were speaking to the ‘creation’ of a forged photograph. But we are not speaking to that, we are speaking to a forensic analysis of a photograph.

        Regardless of what era of photography we wish to examine for signs of forgery, be it the 1860’s or any time to the very present, the techniques of photogrammetry are applicable.
        \\][//

  44. David Regan says:

    Is Oswald Guilty? Dr. Jeremy Gunn was the head of the Assassination Records Review Board, which was created by Congress as a result of Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie ‘JFK’. He believes the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is ‘ambiguous’ and ‘contradictory’. He believes that if Oswald had gone on trial, he would have been acquitted.
    http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV%20Shows/the%20fifth%20estate/ID/2420001347/

    A Lawyer’s Notes on the Warren Commission Report – Alfredda Scobey, who was a member of the staff of the President’s
    Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, reviews
    the testimony amassed by the Commission from the standpoint of the lawyer who might undertake the defense of Lee Harvey Oswald, had he lived. What Ms. Scobey discovers establishes a prima facie case that the alleged assassin could never have been convicted in a court of law.
    http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/v1n1scobey.pdf

  45. Russ says:

    Is anyone actually answering Jeff’s question? He asked NOT for evidence of LHO’s guilt or innocence, but for details on WHEN LHO decided to kill JFK. Presumably, Jeff is asking this of people who believe LHO was the lone assassin. So, can we get back on topic?

  46. Bernatche says:

    Well, the Sniper, probably Wallace, because his fingerprints have been idenfified there, had many places to hide among those boxes of books. And 15 minutes after the shooting, the Dallas Police Force was already looking for Oswald, who have been seen within the luchroom at 12.15 by the witness C. Arnold and at 12.32 or less by the policeman Baker and Roy Truly, the Oswald’s boss. Somewhere, somehow, Truly should have been part of the plot!

Leave a Reply

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

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

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