Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

Posner in Mock Trial?

Author Gerald Posner (whose book Case Closed surmises that the Warren Commission reached the correct conclusions) also participated in a shorter (5 hour) televised mock trial of Oswald which made use of actors rather than witnesses.

I'm not aware of this ever having happened. If this refers to the ABA Mock Trial, Posner didn't participate, although he did use the FAA assessments in his book.

Oswald's Odd Choice of Rifle

Oswald was knowledgeable about rifles and by several accounts had been passionately reading gun magazines prior to buying the 6.5mm Carcano rifle. By far, the most popular World War II surplus rifle at that time was the Mauser Karabiner 98k, the standard WWII rifle for German infantry. Its 7.92mm round is very similar to the 30.06 which is the rifle round Oswald was most familiar with from being in the Marines. Also, the 6.5mm Carcano cartridge would stick out like a sore thumb in any homicide investigation. It seems inexplicable that Oswald would choose this almost obscure Italian weapon.TL36 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It was on sale, very cheap, with a cutout ad from the American Rifleman. Oswald was relatively poor, although in March, 1963 he was probably working at the best job of his life, and had been for some time (he was due to be fired the next month). Had he been paid by some conspiracy, he'd have had enough money for anything he wanted. When Oswald bought the rifle, I doubt he intended to assassinate anybody with it, much less JFK. He liked guns-- he'd accidently fired a pistol he wasn's supposed to have, while in the marines, remember. A firearm made him feel less powerless, and in Texas it wasn't all that odd for people to be gun owners and collectors. My guess is that Oswald's mood in gun ownership was rather playful, as you see on the backyard photos, one of which he even sent to de Mohrenschildt (not an assassin's act). What really set Oswald off at the end, I think, was being fired in April. He attempted assassination of Walker only a few days later-- about as soon as he could, after casing his house over a weekend. Clearly, he was nuts and a walking timebomb from that point on, fixated on getting to Cuba, and angry at anyone who wasn't a Cuban Communist. Then JFK, who had his own many problems with Cuba, decided to take a motorcade route right under the window of the place Oswald was working. He could not have known that would happen when he started there. But when he heard, it must have seemed like destiny. Revenge on the world for all his problems. And there was always Cuba, as a dream of where to escape to. SBHarris 03:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing Oswald did or said can be readily explained. He is as much an enigma today as he was in 1963, and as he will go on to be for future scholars and historians. There are many strange quirks to the man's actions, from his choice of rifle to his leaving it behind the stack of boxes near the stairwell after the shooting. His escape by city bus cannot be comprehended nor his hiding out inside a place such a movie theatre. The responses he gave to journalists after his arrest remain baffling to us despite numerous viewings on television and YouTube. We as editors can ascribe all different types of motives for why he did this and why he said that; however, the fact remains that we do not know and probably never will because Jack Ruby silenced him forever.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

These are not great mysteries. What is Oswald going to do-- attempt to carry the rifle out of the book depository? Oswald didn't drive-- if he wanted to go anywhere he had to walk, get a lift, or take bus or taxi, but he'd left most of his money for Marina, so taxi was the last choice. And Oswald didn't have a cell phone. Waiting for a bus with little time to spare, I think he probably would have taken a taxi after leaving his appartment after the assassination, but how was he to get one? In retrospect he should have had the taxi tht took him home, wait. But he didn't think to do it, expecting to take a bus (which he had to take anyway to get to Mexico). SBHarris 18:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The bit about Oswald not having had a cell phone surprises me, and is indeed another mystery. I really would have thought he would have brought one with him to work that morning just so he could call Marina at 12.25 and inform her he was going to shoot the president. And yes, it was completely in line with Oswald's character to burst out of the building firing his Carcano just like Billy the Kid or the Rifleman.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think cell phones were available in 1963 in the US, and if they were they were certainly out of Oswald's price range. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

They were available, but just not as common as they are today. The actual fact was he had a Motorola RAZR on him but his call plan had expired the month before, so no help to him. --Breshkovsky (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This talk about cell phones is hogwash. It was established by the Warren Commission (cf. Report, Vol. 17, pp. 672-843) that Oswald was issued with a 12-RP Infantry HF Radio (with both 5-SG2 and 12-R components, more details here: 12-RP Details) by his handlers. He was under strict orders to keep it with him at all times. However this was a WW2 surplus Red Army radio, weighed over 14 kilograms with batteries and needed a rather large knapsack to carry. It is perhaps understandable that he left it at home from time to time; had he survived the mission, he would have, in all likelihood, been subject to an investigation, demotion and possibly even a fine for violating regulations. The radio was found buried in the back yard of his house, carefully wrapped in oil-skin, batteries fully charged. This was suppressed from the media, as the US military wanted to study it for possible incorporation of its features—decades ahead of anything the US had at the time—in it's own equipment designs.--kovesp (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Marine Corps Rifle Qualifications

It may not be worth including in the article, but it would be useful to at least have available as background or context information, that the Marine Corps only has 4 possible catagories of rifle qualification, and two of them are over-hyped.

They are Marksman (the lowest qualification), Sharpshooter (average) and Rifle Expert (the highest). The only other possiblity is to be "Unqualified", which for a Marine is very, very bad, and can sometimes be grounds for discharge. But to be a "Marksman" is not much better. Marines take pride in their ability to shoot accurately, and to be awarded the "toilet seat" (the Marksman badge is a flat panel that could be thought of as a toilet seat) is a mark of shame, not pride.

Civilians read about how a Marine (such as Oswald) and they get the impression that he was a very good shot, when in contrast, by Marine Corps standards he was barely acceptable. To be a Sharpshooter is acceptable, but neither of these words convey the highest proficiency attainable. That would be a Rifle Expert. Civilians hear the "salesmanship" behind these words, and miss the simple fact that a "marksman" is the equivalent of a "D" grade. Stats showing the distribution of these medals/qualification, and what percentage are unqualified would be interesting. What if Oswald was in the lowest 20%, shared with those that failed to even qualify. That might lend some perspective to his "marksmanship".

Oswald was a poor shot, and not the steely-eyed gunman that those without military experience would believe him to be. I think that's important for people to keep this in mind, when reading about Oswalds "marksman" and "sharpshooter" rifle "expertise".

Further, I think it would be a good idea to do a little research and find out a workable number for the number of rifle shots that Oswald actually fired while in the Marine Corps. The total number of shots fired would probably surprise most people; with two trips the the qualifying range, I'd estimate the number of shots Oswald actually fired while on Active Duty would be about 200, or even less. It might be interesting for a more definative number to be determined.

This information would also serve to help dilute the idea that Oswald was somehow "special" in his rifle skills. He wasn't special, his reputation is a combination of Marine Corps marketing, and a reluctance on the part of Americans to believe in the unpatriotic idea that there are Marines that are not all that great with a rifle.

Jonny Quick (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

In a TV documentary, maybe Discovery Channel, there is a photo showing the outline of Oswald at the window, and another person in the window directly under Oswald's position. An interview with that person discovede the following testimony: "I heard three shots. Bang ! click click, BANG, click click,(pause a couple of seconds) BANG!" Why is this absolutely clear "ear-witness" evidence NEVER DISCLOSED ON ANY OF THESE discussions? I wish I knew exactly who the witness is, but I'm sure his testimony appears somewhere in the 17 million pages of stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.25.16 (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Selective service card says Alek James Hidell

The Warren Commission published a photo of the card found on Oswald. It says ALEK JAMES HIDELL. It does not anywhere say Alek J. Hidell or A. J. Hidell or Alex J. Hidell or numerous variations. If you can't verify for yourself that it says ALEK JAMES HIDELL, then get a seeing eye dog. But don't edit Wikipedia saying otherwise, please. SBHarris 20:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fake selective service (draft) card in the name of Alek James Hidell, found on Oswald when arrested on the day of the JFK/Tippit murders. "A.Hidell" was the name used on both envelope and order slip to buy the murder weapon (see CE 773) , and was also the alternate name on the post office box rented by Oswald, to which the weapon was sent

Then you need another source. Anything else is your own original research. The article reports on what the Warren Commission said, you can't report on what you say. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the relevant quote from the source used at present The arresting officers found a forged selective service card with a picture of Oswald and the name "Alek J. Hidell" in Oswald's billfold.681 On November 22 and 23, Oswald refused to tell Fritz why this card was in his possession,682 or to answer any questions concerning the card.683 On Sunday morning, November 24, Oswald denied that he knew A. J. Hidell. Captain Fritz produced the selective service card bearing the name "Alek J. Hidell." Oswald became angry and said, "Now, I've told you all I'm going to tell you about that card in my billfolds--you have the card yourself and you know as much about it as I do. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have counted to ten. The full WC report has a facsimile of this card in volume XVII:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh17.htm

CE 795 published in that volume (see above) has the Commisssion notation: "A spurious Selective Service System notice of classification card in the name "Alek James Hidell."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0354a.htm

Therefore when the Warren synopsis says "Captain Fritz produced the selective service card bearing the name "Alek J. Hidell," it is either contradicting itself, or else making a convenient abbreviation, since obviously Captain Fritz produced a card which the Warren Commission itself in volume 17 states bears the spurious name "Alek James Hidell," and not Alek J. Hidell as such. I do not know which is the problem (an error or a convenient abbreviation), and you don't either. To note that a potential problem between these even exists within the report would be original research also, unless you can find a source for somebody else who has a problem with it besides you. In any case, a detail that fine is not appropriate for this article.

So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to note that WC said that the card bore the spurious name of Alek James Hidell. I am going to note that the WC said that Oswald denied that he knew A. J. Hidell and refused to tell the interrogator why this card was in his possession, or to answer any questions concerning the card, saying "..you have the card yourself and you know as much about it as I do."

Finally, if you continue this obstructive and contentious editing, not only will I submit this problem to arbitration, but in the process I will ask that your account be investigated as the sockpuppet of a probable banned user, since you are clearly no newcommer to WP, and you are making quite a mess here, which suggests that you have made a similar mess here before, and been booted for it. Have you not? SBHarris 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not obstructive or contentious to suggest that an edit should reflect the source used to support it. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Capture

Under "Capture", the passage has become ungrammatical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.83 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed now. EEng (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead (again)

This morning the end of the lead read:

In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, a conclusion also reached by prior investigations carried out by the FBI and Dallas Police.

Today an editor changed this to

In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, a conclusion also reached by prior investigations carried out by the FBI and Dallas Police. The John F. Kennedy assassination is still the subject of widespread debate and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories and alternative scenarios. In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) found both the original FBI investigation and the Warren Commission Report to be seriously flawed.

At first I intended to revert to the first version (with a scolding summary suggesting discussion of such a delicate change here first, yada yada yada) but now that I look at it I think some nod should be given in the lead to the fact that (right- or wrong-headedly) controversy continues. So I came up with this.

In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, a conclusion reached previously by the FBI and Dallas Police, although the circumstances of Kennedy's assassination continue to be the subject of controversy.

I also adjusted a link in the first sentence. Full diff (vs. this morning) here [1]. Thoughts? (Alternatives to controversy are debate, uncertainty, etc.) EEng (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In the 70 minutes in since I made the above post, three different editors have jumped in to revert one another. So much for fostering discussion and consensus! I leave it to you maniacs these many enthusistic advocates for their various positions on the matter to duke it out among yourselvesthemselves.

EEng (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

EEng, I started this round of edits on 10 July. I just found that I could discuss my change to the opener of the article here. I was satisfied with the edit you made to my edit as it was a compromise. I state a brief reason for each of my edits and the fact that they all came from existing language in other relevant wikipedia articles. When the change you made was changed back to the original text, leaving a reader with no knowledge of the subject with the impression that the three 1963-1964 investigations had settled the matter that Oswald was a guilty, lone gunman, the problem came back to square one.

It simply is not an accurate impression for someone new to the subject to take away after reading the first three paragraphs of the article. If only the impression that Oswald was and still is determined by government investigators to be a guilty gunman who acted alone, then other wikipedia pages related to the assassination of president John F. Kennedy should cpmvey that this is still the official government conclusion....the last word. But, it isn't, is it? (~~ruidoso~~)

Ruidoso (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that I like EEng's revised one. The problem is that we've got two different equally powerful investigations potentially contradicting each other: the Warren Commission, appointed by Pres. Johnson, and the House Select Committee. It should also be noted that the part in this article which says that the House investigation found the Warren Commission's conclusion severely flawed lacks any citation whatsoever. The opening as it stands right now leads the reader to believe that there was indeed a conspiracy when it's never actually been proven, and the articles on the Warren Commission and the actual Assassination then would further confuse the reader. I like EEng's new one because it talks about the possibility of a conspiracy, and the continuing controversy, but doesn't actually slant one way or the the other.

--Flaming Goldfish (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems consensus has been reached -- at least among those who cared to join the discussion. But I'm going to ask the other editors who made changes in the last days to weigh in as well. For the purposes of continuing the discussion, I propose the following for the last sentence of the lead:

In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, a conclusion reached previously by the FBI and Dallas Police, although the circumstances of Kennedy's death continue to be the subject of controversy.

and the following as the opening (here showing changes against the version before this all started):

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to three government investigations, assassin of President of the United States John F. Kennedy, who was fatally shot in the gunman who shot and killed President of the United States John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.<ref>[[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (1963), [[Warren Commission]] (1964), [[House Select Committee on Assassinations]] (1979).</ref>

The changed wording, in this case, is to address the following: there's a seeming contradiction between the cite to HSCA in support of LHO as "the" assassin vs the fact that HSCA's findings included "[probable]...conspiracy", but the contradiction vanishes when you realize that although HSCA thought that a second person was also shooting, it also concluded that only Oswald's bullets actually struck the President. However, to avoid semantic disputes about whether other conspirators (if one believes there were any) were also "assassins" even though they didn't actually pull a trigger (or pulled a trigger but missed) I came up with what I hope is clean, precise language. Also, since my proposed final sentence for the lead links to the Assassination article, I propose that the opening sentence link to JFK himself, as shown, instead of remaining a second "Assassination" link.

However, if the argument becomes heated I'm going to stay out of it. I see my role on this article as copyedit, staying away from changes to content or tone whever possible. I thought I could help out mediating this particular dispute, but I don't want to be drawn into it. There's a lot in the archives of this Talk over how the lead should be phrased, and it might be worth it for y'all to sift through it before breaking out the spitballs and BB-guns.

For the record, there's no such thing as "the" official government conclusion. The US government doesn't have a sufficiently rigid structure to allow that. Once commission says one thing, a House committee says another. None is "the" "official" position of "the" government.

EEng (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

EEng's patient, diplomatic copy editing of the article has greatly improved it and - since he's managed to get through the whole thing without arousing any dispute - I'd back his judgement every time. Setting aside his overall contribution, the last sentence of the lead and the opening suggested above seem clear, well justified, uncontroversial and a big improvement on the confusion created by 10th July's edits.

Alistair Stevenson (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with the lead as currently constructed. I would suggest however that the last sentence be changed to reflect the dissenting opinions (existence of conspiracy theories) rather than the fact that none of the probable conspirators were identified. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead as it stands just happens to be the text that remained standing when the smoke cleared after a series of un-elucidated reversions by competing factions over the last few days. The lead before all this began was the result of lots of discussion many months (or more) ago (with which I had nothing to do, BTW -- as I keep saying, I'm not going to get in the crossfire here, so to speak). If the lead is to be changed, it should be by reasoned consensus, so I'd like to hear why you think the new lead is preferable to the old, or to others that have popped up in recent days, or to mine as proposed.

wp:UNDUE (emph. added): "Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views;...In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." Even in theories holding that there was a second gunman, or that Oswald was some kind of pawn, in almost all cases the bottom line is that the bullets fired by Oswald (or his Soviet doppelganger, I guess) are what kill JFK; this includes HSCA. Since this is not an article about the JFK killing, but about Oswald, per guideline just quoted it's appropriate (IMHO of course) to note that there is reasoned dissent from the Warren model of events but, in this article, to say little or nothing more except to direct the reader to the article on the assassination more generally, where (as suggested by UNDUE) varies flavors of theories should be given more attention. It's certainly inappropraite to pick one source of dissent, HSCA, out of many and highlight it here.

Nonetheless, your comments inspired me to reword to connote somewhat broader scope to what's controversial:

In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, a conclusion reached previously by the FBI and Dallas Police, although the full circumstances ofsurrounding Kennedy's death continue to be the subject of controversy.

To me the current lead is similar to the one we (I was a part of those discussions many moons ago) hashed out in the past. It is factual, complies with NPOV, and does not violate Undue by mentioning any specific theory. I actually agree with you about not having an emphasis on conspiracy in this article for exactly the reasons you state. But it's been my experience that failing to do so would likely lead to accusations of whitewashing, bias, etc. I know that you can't do an encyclopedia by simply heading off arguments or seeking to placate all sides. However, in this case, where the sentence does provide context for other items already present in the article, I think it's a necessary and harmless concession, especially since it does not seek to define any one theory or controversy.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So far we're lucky in that the token "conspiracist" in the discussion at this point (Ruidoso) approves of the language I've proposed, so maybe we'll escape the whitewash accusation anyway. But how about this?

In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, a conclusion reached previously by the FBI and Dallas Police; however, this and other questions about the circumstances of Kennedy's death continue to be the subject of controversy. (See John F. Kennedy assassination.) EEng (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would add "to some" after the semicolon and make the last four words "a subject of debate", but I wouldn't feel strongly enough about it to edit what you've suggested. No form of words can reflect neutrally the irreconcilable positions that exist about LHO. In any case, whatever's agreed upon will change again, and rightly so.

Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

These are all good suggestions. I am in favour of EEng's newest one, because it succintly phrases the article. I (personally, and you are free to disagree) don't think that we should put the conspiracy theories in the first sentence as they are not the focus of the article. I think it'd be good to keep them towards the end of the lead, so that the article discusses the existence of these theories without abjectly making them the focus (let's face it, when many readers see the word "conspiracy" anywhere on wikipedia, they jump right to that section). Regarding the sentence above, I agree with Alistair on changing "controversy" to "debate," but I personally would like to keep the suggested "to some" out of it; I think that would be getting into who thinks the government's conclusion(s) are debatable, and going into the different advocates of each side is a little much for the article lead.

Flaming Goldfish (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I made some change based on some of what I read here. I do think we need to include the word "assassin" or "assassination" in the 1st paragraph - for that is what it was. I used the word "sniper" because it makes it clear (esp for those who know little about the assassination) that the "gunman" was a rifleman who was hidden & thus so was his identity. It also avoids the awkward "who was fatally shot in Dallas" in a sentence whose subject is Oswald. There were 4 gov't investigations - not 3. Omitting any of the 4 raises POV issues. The HSCA was the only one to conclude "probable conspiracy", and so some backtalk (nameless others, contested acoustic evidence) on its conclusions is appropriate. The fact that evidence is still classified is very relevant to why there is still debate - though I doubt the debate will ever end.

--JimWae (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's JimWae's version (though I, EEng, have reverted it out of the actual article while discussion continues -- hope you don't mind, JimWae -- see below):

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to four government investigations, the sniper who assassinated President of the United States John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.

[paragraph omitted]

In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, a conclusion reached previously by the FBI and Dallas Police. In 1979, The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) agreed that Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald, but also concluded that Oswald was probably part of a conspiracy. The HSCA did not identify any other individual or group of such a conspiracy, and the acoustic evidence it relied on for its findings of a probable conspiracy has since been contested. Some of the evidence gathered by the four investigations is still classified, and the circumstances surrounding Kennedy's death continue to be the subject of debate.

What is the "token" reference about? I thought this is about accurate balance. The HSCA made a finding of conspiracy. It should be noted in the Lead.

This is about the impression the Lead of the LHO article conveys to the reader. There was nothing in it that gave the impression that there was any other conclusion about LHO being a guilty, lone sniper that three (2 Federal, 1 city) investigations of the murders of JFK and of P.O. Tippitt, all completed by 1964. I thought that the Lead needed this for balance and accuracy.:

"The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established...to investigate the John F. Kennedy assassination .... and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, probably as a result of a conspiracy."

The text above comes directly from the Lead of HSAC and it adds balance and accuracy to the first impression read of the LHO article. Why does it have to keep being edited from the identical, but abbreviated wording in the lead of the HSCA article? If the recent edits stay, and there is nothing cited to support the deviation from the text above, can I not apply the same wording next to the other three described investigations in the LHO article lead? IMO, there are many controversies related to those three investigations.

I am sure the intent of the most recent edits it to shape a first impression that only the HSCA findings of a conspiracy are controversial, as no such connotation is hung on the references to the other three investigations.

~~ruidoso~~ Ruidoso (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Calm, caaaalm, everyone. Keep caaalm! JimWae, I think it's best if we keep discussing here before jumping in to make changes, so I'm going to revert your change back to where things were when I started this topic (not my version, by the way) while discussion continues. May I suggest that Ruidoso and JimWae hold off on commenting for half a day while we wait and see what others have to say? (P.S. Ruidoso, remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ each time. Everyone: I'm experimenting with an indenting style in which each participant gets his own indent distance -- I think this makes it easier to follow who's saying what, but please let me know what you think.)

JimWae, I'm not sure you've been following the discussion, because you mention the "who was fatally shot" language, and that isn't in the text we were talking about, which is higher up in this topic.

Ruidoso, my "token" reference was ill-considered. Ramsquire was was worried about "whitewashing" accusations, I pointed out that you felt OK about the proposed text under discussionm and since were the person who seemed most conerned that "non-conventional" views be represented in the lead, I thought that was a good sign. That's why I called you our "token conspiracist." Sorry. However, there is a reason that lead text that's right for HSCA might not be right for this article: they're on different subjects and need different emphases. A lead needs to be carefully crafted, and every word represents a choice about how to invest the reader's attention. What's right for one article is probably not exactly right for another, even on a closely related topic.

Other comments? EEng (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I could go with the JimWae version above, although it makes me unhappy since the HSCA acoustic evidence, which was ALL it had to infer conspiracy, is not just "contested", but has since essentially been destroyed. If the HSCA as a whole still had to defend it, it would be in deep doo-doo. There are multiple reasons why that sound/dictabelt recording could not have been made during the assassination, and if it wasn't, then that's the end of it-- the other evidence, to high plausability (even as examined by the HSCA, which did a much more careful job than anybody) looks like Oswald acting alone. What, after all, is our alternative? Our James Bond Oswald, who can't drive, is using a 20 year old surplus rifle, and hasn't got any money, is set up to fire the two killing shots (the only ones that hit). His high powered conspirators (whoever they are, from CIA, governments, etc) presumably have decent equipment, but they use it to take ONE shot that misses! I can't believe the HSCA went for that idea no matter what kind of sound evidence it had. And what it had was known to be crappy then, and it looks even crappier now. It's very bizarre to let it influence the lead except in a historical fashion. SBHarris 02:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's safe to go back in the water yet, but I'm gonna take a chance. Wiithout a lot of explanation, here's a very much changed lead which I hope points the reader to the dispute without taking sides:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 &ndash; November 24, 1963) is conventionally, though not universally, held to be the sniper who shot and killed President of the United States John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.

A former U.S. Marine who had briefly defected to the Soviet Union, Oswald was initially arrested in the shooting of police officer J. D. Tippit, who was killed on a Dallas street shortly after Kennedy was shot; Oswald was soon suspected in the death of Kennedy as well. Two days later, while being transferred to another jail, Oswald was himself mortally wounded by nightclub owner Jack Ruby in full view of television cameras broadcasting live.

Oswald's erratic past and enigmatic public comments while in custody prompted speculation about not only his motives, but also the possibility that he had not acted alone; under this view, Oswald's sudden death represented some broader conspiracy's silencing of a potential witness.

Official investigations [cite FBI, Warren, Dallas PD] in the year after Kennedy's death -- most prominently the Warren Commission's -- concluded that Oswald had indeed acted alone, and immediately there opened a division of opinion among scholars, journalists, officials at various levels, and the public at large as to whether these investigations convincingly established the so-called "lone-gunman theory," or were themselves evidence of a continuing coverup.

Further information: John F. Kennedy assassination

Comments? EEng (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of the ending language-- immediately there opened a division of opinion among scholars, journalists, officials at various levels, and the public at large as to whether these investigations convincingly established the so-called "lone-gunman theory," or were themselves evidence of a continuing coverup.. The overwhelming consensus of the scholars, journalists, historians and officials is that Oswald killed Kennedy alone. The only significant group who support conspiracy and cover up is the general public. May I suggest immediately there opened a division of opinion between scholars, journalists, officials at various levels, who supported the findings of the Commission and the public at large that continued to believe in the possibility of a conspiracy and a continuing coverup. I think this gets the point across more clearly. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we just keep it simple, something like: The assassination has spawned numerous conspiracy theories disputing Oswald's guilt and the identity of Kennedy's assassin. Gamaliel (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, howzabout simpler still?:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) is conventionally, though not universally, held to be the sniper who shot and killed President of the United States John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.

A former U.S. Marine who had briefly defected to the Soviet Union, Oswald was initially arrested in the death of police officer J. D. Tippit, who was killed on a Dallas street shortly after Kennedy was shot; Oswald was soon suspected in the death of Kennedy as well. Two days later, while being transferred between jails, Oswald was himself mortally wounded by nightclub owner Jack Ruby in full view of television cameras broadcasting live.

As in any political murder, the question of whether there were persons responsible beyond just the apparent assassin is a natural one, and in the case of Oswald one which has been the subject of heated controversy.

Main article: John F. Kennedy assassination

That's a bit bare-bones, but I wonder if we can agree on this for now as a base. Or maybe this is all the lead needs -- natural question with heated controversy, taking no sides where. You'll notice I say "has been" the subject of controversy -- that's to satisfy people who think the controversy is over now. (Once agaiin I say I'm not taking sides on who's right, just trying to find honest text which we can agree on.) Comments?

EEng (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like leaving out the investigations or the fact that all of those investigations fingered Oswald. Gamaliel (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel, the first sentence you've suggested implies Oswald's guilt was established by convention, rather than by successive enquiries. It seems more like your own commentary than fact. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

By conventional I tried to express that Oswald being the sniper is what you usually find in history books, offhand references in works on other subjects, and so on; "conventional" also has a flavor of but-that-doesn't-mean-it's-correct, as in the phrase, conventional wisdom, which I hoped would be less likely to offend conspiracy people. Anyway, not such a good choice I guess. EEng (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest returning to this lead with the only change being replacing the last sentence with the one Gamaliel writes above. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That would lose good suggestions made by others in the discussion so far.

The problem is, if we just say "Oswald is generally [or, generally but not always] considered the assassin," then LGAs (lone-gunman adherents) want to add, "according to 3 official investigations." Then the CTAs (conspiracy-theory adherents) want added, "HSCA said there was a conspiracy." Then LGAs come back with, "You must add that HSCA's ballistics have been questioned/disproven/whatever." And on it goes. As I keep saying, these are questions to grapple with in articles on the assassination more globally, not here, so I'm trying for text that won't trigger that chain reaction. Toward that end, I'd like to avoid naming the various investigations in the text (though citing them in footnotes).

You'll see I've included a hatnote and also two "main article/see also" notes. Would it help to include the hatnote, or the main article+see also (or neither)? (I don't think we can have both.)

This article is about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald. For discussion of Oswald and the assassination of John F. Kennedy, see John F. Kennedy assassination and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to a series of official investigations,<ref> cite Warren, FBI, Dallas PD, HSCA</ref> the sniper who shot President of the United States John F. Kennedy from a window of the Texas School Book Depository building in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.

A former U.S. Marine who had briefly defected to the Soviet Union, Oswald was initially arrested in the death of police officer J. D. Tippit, who was killed on a Dallas street shortly after Kennedy was shot; Oswald was soon suspected in the death of Kennedy as well. Two days later, while being transferred between jails, Oswald was himself mortally wounded by nightclub owner Jack Ruby in full view of television cameras broadcasting live.

Though most (but not all) official investigations concluded that Oswald acted completely alone, numerous theories have been put forth proposing either that others encouraged or assisted him, or that in fact he had no involvement at all.

Main article: John F. Kennedy assassination

Further information: John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

EEng (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. I agree (as a recent edit summary said) that the lead was better before this all started, but there was an edit war developing. Anyway, why don't we see if we can get something useful out of all this work?

As a cosmetic thing, my personal preference is that we work those links into the text instead of using hatnotes. The intro is talking about those issues anyway. Gamaliel (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hatnotes or MainArticle/SeeAlso distinguish the present article's coverage vs that of other articles. This is a perfect example of when to use them instead of inline links. It's not a question of cosmetics. Again, I'm proposing we use one or the other, but not both of course. (I also tinkered a bit with the wording of the proposed lead just now.)

EEng (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

1>Are people thinking that we cannot specify in the lede the names or numbers of investigations that concluded Oswald was the assassin? Is that thinking because the HSCA was so flawed, but we cannot say so and cannot even say it is contested without having to list every detailed criticism of the other investigations? The overarching criticism of the Warren Commission is that the public does not think the issue is settled - saying that (and that evidence is still classified) says a lot in a summative way. There is no way that every criticism of the WC can fit in the lede, but the 2 criticisms of the HSCA are easily summarized.

2>The most germane link for Oswald is to the assassination article. The link to JFK himself is quite irrelevant in comparison--

JimWae (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but is there space as well for the rebuttals of the criticisms of HCSA? And the sur-rebuttals? Well, we've tried putting in all kinds of details, but the problem is people start demanding parity of emphasis, and experience indicates that people have a hard time agreeing on what constitutes that.

As to public opinion about the circumstances of JFK's death. that's is an intereting aspect of that event as an important chapter in American history, but it has little weight as to the validity of any given investigation (though it may speak to the effectiveness with which it was presented to the general public.) And if you read up a little higher you'll see that, if we start talking about public opinion, then Ramsquire wants us to say that "elites" (that's a technical term in sociology, not a value judgment) like scholars and journalists believe in the lone gunman, and only the public believes in conspiracies, So then we'll have to argue about that.

I'll say it again: IMO this article is about Oswald minus the assassination to the extent that's possible. That may seem strange since the most important thing about Oswald is the assassination, but it's so big that it's too big for the article on the man himself -- that's why there are related articles. The one thing just about everyone -- all official investigations, and most conspiracy theories -- agrees on is that Oswald shot K (even if they disagree about all kinds of other things), so that's what the lead tells the reader, plus mentioning that there's dispute about the "all kinds of other things" -- without attempting to hash it out right here. That's why there's the "Main article: JFK Assassination / See also: JFK Conspiracy theories."

EEng (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "minus, as much as possible" is a goal - but investigations into his involvement are crucial to saying much of anything when it comes time to tell of his "role" in the assassination here, as unavoidably we must. Btw, "according to every official investigation, the sniper who..." or "according to all four official..." would also be correct - and more complete. --JimWae (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think a "Main article" hat or "see also" works in a lede--JimWae (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to clarify one point. My position was only to make sure that if we are saying there is a split in opinion, we don't leave an inaccurate impression of the split. I don't anyone could argue with the premise that the "elites" have one view and the general public has another. The language I "objected" to left that distinction vague. But at this point, I think everyone seems to be close to the same page. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

People who want to discuss improving the article, post above this line; people who want argue about who killed Kennedy, post below this line. Thank you.

No problem...re: the "token" reference, but I thought that comment was part of a post here by Alistair Stevenson? If you want to get into this, Sbharris, how did LHO know to get a job working in the last building before the overpass and that the JFK motorcade would take the turn to go by the book depository while traffic direction, normally one way, the other way, would be reversed for that occasion? Speaking of his job hunting, were you aware of this?

The strange story of 'Papa Pilgrim' A life off the beaten path Fort Worth Star-Telegram/December 9, 2007 By Jack Douglas Jr.

"Robert "Bobby" Hale, the Scripture-quoting "Papa Pilgrim" who used the Bible to pound subservience into his 15 children, went before a judge in Alaska last month, looking old and frail beyond his 66 years as he learned his punishment -- 14 years behind bars -- for sexually assaulting one of his daughters.... 'Hillbilly Heaven' In the past 48 years, a lot has happened with Hale, most recently the fallen patriarch of his family's religious compound -- nicknamed "Hillbilly Heaven" -- in the Alaska outback. Starting in 2002, they lived a life of subsistence -- handmade clothes, no TV, only the Bible to read -- on a 410-acre ranch surrounded by the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, the largest national park in the United States....

Prison time is only the latest chapter in the bizarre life of Hale, the son of a legendary TCU football player....

Young wife's death

Hale was a senior at Arlington Heights High when he eloped with his girlfriend, Kathleen Connally, a junior. They married in Ardmore, Okla., moved into a modest apartment in Tallahassee, Fla., and began a marriage of young hope.

It would last just over a month.

Kathleen Connally Hale died April 28, 1959, from a shotgun blast behind her right ear. She was pregnant. Her husband spent the next night in jail, a Star-Telegram report said at the time. But the death was later ruled an accident, caused when the gun discharged as Hale tried to take it from his wife.

Described as incoherent in the hours after his wife's death, Hale was said to have later passed a lie-detector test, and his fingerprints were not found on the gun, despite the report that he had grabbed for it. So, authorities determined, Kathleen died during "a little squabble like kids will have."

It meant an end to Hale's brief role as son-in-law to John Connally, then a confidant to Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson and an attorney for Fort Worth millionaires Sid Richardson and Perry Bass. John Connally later became governor of Texas and was wounded in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Connally, who died in 1993, wrote in his autobiography that he had been told that there may have been a suicide pact between his firstborn child and her new husband, and that "Bobby backed out." All-American's family More than 3,500 miles and a world of difference separate the primitive ranch in Alaska -- where Papa Pilgrim held court over his flock -- and the home on tree-lined Fortune Road in west Fort Worth where Bobby Hale grew up with his twin brother, Billy, and younger brother, Tommy.

Their mother, Virginia, was an accomplished bridge player. Their father, I.B. Hale, was an All-American lineman for the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs football team and its captain during the team's undefeated national championship season in 1938. He was a good friend and college roommate of another famous TCU player, Davey O'Brien.

I.B. Hale was a big man in town and in Texas. After TCU, he turned down an offer to play for the Washington Redskins so he could coach at Kilgore High School. After two seasons, Hale became an FBI agent, then security chief at the General Dynamics fighter jet plant in Fort Worth...."

"COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1891 On May 13, 1964, Mrs . 'VIRGINIA HALE, 6475 Fortune Road, Fort Worth, Texas . employed in the Job Placement Division of Texas Employment Commission, Fort Worth, Texas, furnished the following information : She recalled LEE HARVEY OSWALD quite well and she sent him out on the ]ob to the Les11e welding company . Mrs . HALE stated she did not give the names of MAX CLARK or PETER GREGORY to OSWALD, but she believed that Mrs . ANNIE LAURIE SMITH of Texas employmant Commission might have furnished the name of CLARK to OSWALD"

Excerpt from The Dark Side of Camelot Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. The IRE Journal, Nov/Dec 1997 by Hersh, Seymour

"It also told Hoover something he didn't know; the Hale family and General Dynamics were linked to the break-in. "A man answering the description of the individual who entered (Exner's) apartment was observed leaving the area in an automobile registered to former Special Agent I.B. Hale who resides in Fort Worth, Texas," the summary said. "Our Dallas office has advised that. . . Hale is employed at General Dynamics. . . in charge of security." The summary noted that the crime its agents witnessed "is not being disseminated to the Los Angeles Police Department at this time." ... ....In other words, the FBI bureau in Los Angeles was more interested in keeping up its surveillance on Judith Exner's apartment than in prosecuting a crime or trying to find out what I.B. Hale and his sons were doing there The break-in at Exner's apartment was never investigated by the FBI, nor did it evoke a sudden rush of curiosity that fall, when the Kennedy administration's surprise selection of General Dynamics to build the TFX triggered outcries in the press and the Congress. What happened was not a cover-up, but something much more mundane. I.B. Hale, as a prominent college football star, had been one of Hoover's favorites while he was in the FBI;"

Who testified that they saw LHO bring a rifle into that TSBD building? Did an attorney represent Oswald posthumously in the WC investigation proceedings?

Apologies for taking up space here and maybe some attention, but if you think it is correct to insert criticism of the HSCA in that third Lead paragraph, then it should be correct to point out that the WC investigation was flawed. Do you know who proposed Albert E Jenner, Jr. for the WC position as senior assistant investigative counsel, tasked with determining if either Oswald or Ruby was part of any conspiracy, or that Jenner's most prominent client was the man with the controlling interest in General Dynamics, and that that client's son was a member of Jenner's lawfirm?

My point is that the things above happened. Connally's daughter married the son of the woman who sent Oswald on a job interview. That son and his twin brother were observed by the FBI in LA in August '62 leaving Judith Exner's apartment after sneaking in and out of it via the balcony. The car they drove away in was registered to the women who sent Oswald out on a job interview, former FBI agent IB Hale. Hoover and his FBI did not pass this info on to any of the "government" investigations, or the fact that Hale worked for General Dynamics, controlled by Albert Jenner's biggest client.

Please consider leaving in references to the findings of all four investigations now mentioned, with no criticism of any of them. It's an intro. There is no "conventional" view, is the crux of my point. The public opinion polls support the idea that the official findings have never been accepted. Ruidoso (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• COMMENT: Oswald's Job at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD)

I really have no idea what you're talking about, or why I should care about the unappetizing character above. Who cares who sent Oswald to a job interview at a welding company?? The point is how he got his job at the TSBD 5 weeks before the assassination. Which is due to a large number of coincidences involving people very unlikely to all have been part of a monster plot, and yet they all would have to have been. It's not big problem for me because I don't think LHO intended to kill JFK when he started work at the TSBD. He only later found out that the motorcade would drive down Elm, and decided the chance was too good to pass up. He was trying to get to Cuba, the last socialist paradise, and he probably told himself that JFK had been nasty to Castro and Cuba. It's clear he was itching to shoot somebody who was anticommunist (though General Walker, a planned target, was a much more natural one).

How did LHO get the TSBD job? Through the long-suffering Wesley Buell Frazier, who had moved to Dallas a month before and was staying with his sister in Irving. Frazier had gotten a job at the TSBD in September. When Marina Oswald left New Orleans to go back to Dallas, she was broke, with unemployed husband, 8-months pregnant, and basically homeless. Ruth Paine, a member of the community of Russophiles in Dallas who had known the Oswalds when they lived there previously, took her in. Frazier's sister happened to be living next door to the Paines. When Oswald showed up in October (staying behind to collect a $33 unemployment check first-- some great well-funded assassin this guy was), he stayed with the Paines, too, where his wife was. They didn't like him much, but put up with him because of Marina. LHO was out of work, and Paine knew her next-door neighbor's brother had just gotten a job at the TSBD a month before, after moving into town, and that the TSBD was hiring. Fit that into a conspiracy. So LHO learned about Frazier's job from Paine. And it would ultimately be Frazier himself who would drive Oswald, who (again) was broke, had no car, and couldn't drive anyway, to Dallas twice a week, most weeks, and also pick him up at his Dallas rooming house, on the way into work, to save him bus fare. Frazier seems to have been a saint, or else he couldn't say no. Or was doing it for his sister's friend's friend's husband. He, obviously, as a man living with a relative, was in no position to play the badguy to another man in the same straights, who Frazier's sister wanted to see employed for the sake of her friends the Paines, who were stuck with the Oswalds.

The TSBD didn't have to hire Oswald, either, but the man in charge THERE testified that he liked LHO's clean-Marine attitude, and the way he said "sir" automatically to older men. Upon that fact, history hinged. The Marines tought Oswald to shoot and be respectful. LHO got hired. He didn't find out about the route of JFK's motorcade until a month later, a couple of days before the assassination, when it was published in the Dallas news. He barely had time to get back to Irving under pretext (Hey, Wes, I absolutely have to go home to get curtain rods for my rented boarding house!), and get his rifle. Needless to say, the boarding house didn't need curtain rods. Nor was Oswald the kind of guy to give a damn about curtain rods. When asked by somebody else as the TSBD what he had in the package, Oswald told him it was his lunch. Right. That's a long loaf of French bread there, Lee.

Why did the JFK motorcade make a hairpin under the TSBD to get from Houston to Elm (an illegal left at the time)? Because the motorcade was driving down Main Steet through the heart of Dallas, and after Main ran through Dealey Plaza, there was no way to get on the freeway from it. The on-ramp was only accessable from Elm. So the motorcade made a very short detour on Houston to get to Elm, and that took it by the TSBD. The assassination theory would have been much better if LHO was standing out front and shot JFK with a pistol just as the car slowed to make the hairpin turn, but that's not the way it happened. JFK's car had PLENTY of room and chance to accelerate to good speed on Elm, before the president was shot, but the whole point of a slow motorcade is to let the president drive slowly and greet crowds. The hairpin turn under the TSBD was totally irrelevant! The speed on Elm was the same as it had been on Main. And the reason the motorcade was on Elm was to get onto the Stemmons Freeway to get to the Trade-mart. That's it. SBHarris 05:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Break

SBHarris- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=by+sylvan+fox+that+Lee+Oswald+was+working+at+the+Texas+School+Book+Depository&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= The Unanswered Questions about President Kennedy's Assassination‎ - Page 67 by Sylvan Fox - 1965 - 221 pages "The FBI knew on Nov. 1, 1963, that Lee Oswald was working at the Texas School Book Depository. FBI agent James Hosty learned of this from Mrs. Ruth Paine."

Officials in the government are known to have known where LHO was employed, by November 4, 1963.: (From the WC Report) http://books.google.com/books?id=TpzGMAmH2LEC&pg=PA438&dq=hosty+%22411+elm%22 "Chapter 8: The Protection of the President

Page 438

...I asked her if she knew where he worked. After a moment's hesitation, she told me that he worked at the Texas School Book Depository near the downtown area of Dallas. She didn't have the exact address, and it is my recollection that we went to the phone book and looked it up, found it to be 411 Elm Street.107

Mrs. Paine told Hosty also that Oswald was living alone in Dallas because she did not want him staying at her house, although she was willing to let Oswald visit his wife and children.108 According to Hosty, Mrs. Paine indicated that she thought she could find out where Oswald was living and would let him know.109 At this point in the interview, Hosty gave Mrs. Paine his name and office telephone number on a piece of paper.110 At the end of the interview, Marina Oswald came into the room. When he observed that she seemed "quite alarmed" about the visit, Hosty assured her, through Mrs. Paine as interpreter, that the FBI would not harm or harass her.111

On November 4, Hosty telephoned the Texas School Book Depository and learned that Oswald was working there and that he had given

Page 439

as his address Mrs. Paine's residence in Irving.112 Hosty took the necessary steps to have the Dallas office of the FBI, rather than the New Orleans office, reestablished as the office with principal responsibility.113 On November 5, Hosty was traveling near Mrs. Paine's home and took the occasion to stop by to ask whether she had any further information. ...."

"Pleas refer to:

ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN PERMISSION TO DECLASSIFY PORTION OF UNIDENTIFIED FBI DOCUMENT RIF#: 104-10005-10228 (10/21/64) CIA#: 201-289248

for this post located at: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1095

"....Mr. HOSTY. No, she didn't. She was quite friendly and invited me in, said this is the first time she had ever met an FBI agent. Very cordial As I say, it is my recollection I sat here on the couch and she sat across the room from me. I then told her the purpose of my visit, that I was interested in locating the whereabouts of Lee Oswald. She readily admitted that Mrs. Marina Oswald and Lee Oswald's two children were staying with her. She said that Lee Oswald was living somewhere in Dallas. She didn't know where. She said it was in the Oak Cliff area but she didn't have his address. I asked her if she knew where he worked. After a moment's hesitation, she told me that he worked at the Texas School Book Depository near the downtown area of Dallas. She didn't have the exact address, and it is my recollection that we went to the phone book and looked it up, found it to be 411 Elm Street.

....Mr. DULLES. Did you clear or notify the Dallas office either before or after?

Mr. HOSTY. You mean after I determined this?

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. HOSTY. Oh, yes, sir. This occurred on the 1st. This was a Friday. I returned to the Dallas office. I covered a couple of other leads on the way back. I got in shortly after 5 o'clock and all our stenos had gone home. This information has to go registered mail, and it could not go then until Monday morning.Monday morning---shall I continue?

Mr. STERN. Yes.

Mr. HOSTY. On Monday morning, I made a pretext telephone call to the Texas School Book Depository, I called up and asked for the personnel department, asked if a Lee Oswald was employed there. They said yes, he was. I said what address does he show? They said 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex., which I knew not to be his correct address. I then sent a communication, airmail communication to the New Orleans office advising them--and to the headquarters of the FBI advising them--and then instructing the New Orleans office to make the Dallas office the office of origin. We were now assuming control, because he had now been verified in our division. ..."

After the breakfast speech JFK made in Ft. Worth, the presidential entourage was located closer to the Trade Mart lunch destination than they were after they packed everyone in AF-1 and took off @ 11:20am landed a short distance away at Love Field @11:40.

"Several years ago I began a thread titled "Did the 'Big Fish" know" which centered on the fact that FBI Agent Patrick Hosty had sent a note on November 4, 1963 that detailed exactly where Lee Harvey Oswald was working and that that note was never given a Commission Exhibit Number and has never been uncovered although two other Hosty notes were given Commission Exhibit Numbers and did make it to the office of Richard Helms.

Today I would like to take this information a step further and make some additional suggestions on how the machanics of murder may have been put in place by Maxwell Taylor in his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and control over Air Force One.

It is actually surprisingly simple. Hosty note sent November 4, 1963 detailing where Oswald was working.

November 8, 1963 Mr. Killerman assigns Winston Lawson to the Dallas portion of the Presidential trip of November 22 and tells him that there would be a 45 minute time lapse for the motorcade trip although the location of the luncheon was still up in the air.

In his testimony Lawson states, "...This figuered a great deal in the parade route, the 45 minutes.

Mr Stern then asks: The 45 minute time interval?

Lawson: Yes, sir.

Stern: Was established for you by the White House?

Lawson: Yes, sir.

We find two other important facts. The Trade Mart Luncheon site was established by the White House and that the motorcade would go down Main Street.

Given the time factor, we learn that Lawson would know how far the motorcade would travel during the 45 minutes aloted (figuring "a great deal in the parade route, the 45 minutes"). At the end of this distance (dictated by time) the motorcade would go off Main onto Houston and then Elm to the Stimmons Fwy to backtrack to the Trade Mart luncheon leaving the TSBD as the last building passed.

Looking deeper into this we find that the 45 minutes was created by creating a delay in Fort Worth before the Presidential plane left for Dallas.

Looking at Mr. Kellerman's testimony we find the President giving a speech in the parking lot of his hotel at 8:25am followed by a breakfast with the Chamber of Commerce. We know that this was a short breakfast because Kellerman received a phone call from Dallas about the wheather at 10:00am while the President had returned to his Suite at the hotel.

For nearly an hour and a half there is very little activity except to travel the few miles to the airport.

(from the testimony of Roy Kellerman

Mr. Specter: Now, at about what time did President Kennedy depart from fort Worth?

Kellerman: We were airborne from fort Worth at 11:20 in the morning....we arrived in Dallas, Love Field, at 11:40am.

Kellerman mentions three times in his testimony the arrival time of 11:40 at Love Field.

I have had an opportunity to be present at a Vice Presidential landing....it arrived at exactly the minute that it was supposed to just as President Kennedy's plane landed at Love Field at exactly the time planned by Washington and those in charge of military transportation said it would land on November 8, 1963.

The Presidential Plane could have left at anytime from Fort Worth after the Commerce Breakfast but an hour and a half interlude was provided so that the plane would land in Dallas at exactly 11:40am.

This hour and a half delay created exactly the right amount of time for the motorcade to travel past one last building on its way to the Trade Mart Luncheon and that one last building was the TSBD building where Oswald was working!

Once again, as Winston Lawson says, "This figured a great deal in the parade route, the 45 minutes."

Jim Root "

...and SBHarris, I've not yet accepted that you don't grasp the significance of the relatively recent awareness that Hoover knew at the time of the WC that the FBI had interviewed Virginia Hale http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0363b.htm ...who had sent Oswald on a job interview, and that he did not inform the WC that Mrs. Hale tied in, these ways.:
1. Mrs. Hale who had contact with Oswald in 1963, was the spouse of former FBI agent and current head of General Dynamics industrial security in Ft. Worth. Hale's family later claimed that IB Hale rode in the Dallas motorcade, just behind JFK and the SS.
2. IB Hale's twin son had been involved in the 1959 shooting of the son's spouse, the daughter of then current shooting victim, John Connally. (I do not believe this is an important tie in, but Connally might have.)
3. In the summer of 1962 Hoover and FBI HQ received an Airtel (links to photos of documents) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-6258-1237241702.jpg

with the license number of a Texas plate, registered to IB Hale, seen by FBI http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-6258-1237241662.jpg

surveillance spotted on a vehicle driven in LA by two young men matching the decription of Hale's twin sons, after they forced entry into the balcony door of Judith Exner's apartment. The FBI was watching that house because Johnny Roselli was paying the rent and Exner was known to be talking to JFK's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln.
4. General Dynamics, controlled by Henry Crown, was desperately trying to win the TFX $6 defense contract in 1962, the most expensive in history.
5. At the suggestion of Earl Warren who said that Tom C. Clark and Dean Acheson agreed. the Warren Commissioners appointed Henry Crown's personal attorney as Senior Assistant Counsel, assigned to determine if Oswald or Ruby were involved in conspiracy. As the article below shows, Henry Crown should have been a person of interest to the WC investigation. Earl Warren and his daughter Virginia were very close to Henry Crown's closest investment partner, Conrad Hilton. Drew Pearson wrote that Tom Clark told him in 1946 that before he was murdered, James M. Ragen had told the FBI that Crown, along with Hilton and Annenberg, were at the top of the Chicago mob syndicate. In 1956, Tom Clark chose Henry Crown's son John as one of his two annual law clerks at the Supreme Court. In 1959, Albert Jenner hired Crown's son into his law firm, where he later became a firm partner. in 1966, one Of Warren's two law clerks was the son of Paul Ziffren, a former law partner of Crown's close Chicago associate, political boss Jake Arvey. Paul Ziffren was the democratic state chairman in California, accused in 1960 by a fellow republican of Warren of having close ties to the mob and mob investments. Ziffren then stepped down.

News in March, 1977: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_ldate=1977&as_hdate=1977&q=del+Webb+henry+crown&lnav=od&btnG=Search

"For [Del] Webb, the Flamingo experience led to a series of deals with other developers who had their own ties to the Mob-dominated Chicago political machine, including Henry Crown and Arnold S. Kirkeby of Los Angeles. Crown, now 80...became a close adviser to Webb and one of the few men allowed in the inner councils of the corporation.

He has been described by a close associate as Webb’s "money man." A.A. McCullom, a former Webb executive, said he had to be interviewed by Crown before he was hired by the Webb corporation in 1961."

http://www2.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1996/11/18/BU49588.DTL&hw=assassinated&sn=009&sc=442

How Kennedy Assassination Affected Some Stock Prices JONATHAN MARSHALL "Nov. 18, 1996

....But the facts speak tellingly about how accidents of history can affect great fortunes.

A postscript for assassination buffs: No individual stood to lose more from the TFX scandal than Chicago investor Henry Crown, who owned 20 percent of General Dynamics. His personal attorney, Albert Jenner, became a senior staff attorney on the Warren Commission, in charge of investigating the possibility of a conspiracy.In later years, Jenner also represented Chicago labor racketeer Allen Dorfman. Dorfman's stepfather Paul, a leading figure in the Chicago mob, ran the Waste Handlers Union in Chicago in 1939 with Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald's future killer...

...Allen Dorfman was murdered, gangland-style, in 1983 in the company of another friend of Ruby, Irwin Weiner. Attorney Jenner obtained Weiner's acquittal in a 1975 federal labor racketeering case after the government's leading witness was shotgunned to death.

Weiner was called to testify in 1978 before the House Select Committee on Assassinations about his relationship with Ruby, including a phone conversation with Ruby shortly before the assassination. He said the call was innocent.

The committee was investigating the theory -- which it never proved -- that organized crime had Ruby silence Oswald to disguise its own role in the Kennedy assassination....."

Hoover had to decide to withhold the info related to Virginia Hale by only including the exhibit to the WC which documents here name and address and her contact with LHO. It is an omission that destroys the WC report, because in 2008, http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/ford/ford03.PDF it was also revealed that informant Jerry Ford told Hoover's #3 immediately, that Albert Jenner had been appointed to the WC, and Hooover said and did nothing about Jenner's conflict, which he knew at the same time Tom C. Clark did through James M. Ragen, and because of the IB Hale license plate report Hoover sat on. Ruidoso (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Ruidoso (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you use fewer words? I cannot even tell what your thesis is. Yes, the 45 min trip from Love Field to the Trade Mart was carefully planned. Could they have made it longer by making the president get up early (after a bad night's sleep) give 2 speeches, feed him breakfast, and then cram him immediately into a jet, after which he's forced to be driven through Dallas in an open car waving at crowds for (I presume you want) the maximum amount of time left in the morning (however long that is) over an unplanned route (maybe he could double back?) until it's time for his NEXT speech, after a lunch? This is a guy with back pain and colitis and you're not going to give him a mid-morning break in his hotel room, between speeches and eating and flying and handshaking and tour-driving and more eating and more speeches? You're a cold man.

I don't care if Hosty did know LHO worked at the TSBD. LHO had no history of violence so far as Hosty knew, had made no threats against the president, and Hosty didn't now he was armed. It's not clear to me if Hosty even knew where the TSBD was. Or realized that the motorcade would pass it, before the assassination. This is all clear in retrospect. As for the idea that somebody planned the motorcade to go past the TSBD, that's total nonsense. The motorcade was planned to go from Love Field through downtown Dallas on Main, and then as directly as possible, on the freeway to the Trade Mart. The route they took to do this, is totally the logical one. SBHarris 04:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Third break

This discussion began as my argument that it is not fair or accurate to only, in the third paragraph of the LHO article Lead, add a disclaimer to the HSCA finding of conspiracy while not adding any similar disclaimer as to the integrity of the three 1964 investigation findings of "lone gunman"? Here is more of the record, and it includes James P. Hosty in his own words. The Dallas FBI office was in possession of a violent threat delivered to it in a note from Oswald, ten days before November, 22, 1963, and that note was destroyed.:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d32jyAysvGQC&pg=PA200&dq=%22Assignment,+Oswald%22+%22%22the+oswald+cover-up&hl=en&ei=w0dCTOjIE8KC8gb50NAE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Assignment%2C%20Oswald%22%20%22%22the%20oswald%20cover-up&f=false Assignment, Oswald - Page 200

James P. Hosty, Thomas C. Hosty - 1995 - 328 pages

"On September 15, 1975, Time magazine ran an article entitled "The Oswald Cover-up" that made reference to Oswald delivering the note to me. However, Time relied on sworn affidavits from as many as six high-ranking FBI men to assert, ... "

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,917816,00.html FBI: The Oswald Cover-Up Monday, Sep. 15, 1975

...The FBI is investigating the previously unrevealed fact that a few days before President Kennedy's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald dropped in at the bureau's Dallas office to deliver a threatening note. Not only did the Dallas FBI fail to put Oswald under surveillance, but FBI officials destroyed the note after Kennedy's death and then withheld all knowledge of the affair from the Warren Commission.

Back in 1964, of course, the FBI told the commission that Oswald and his Russian-born wife Marina were no strangers to the bureau. Both had been the subjects of routine interviews the FBI conducted at that time with people who had lived in Communist countries. Dallas Agent James P. Hosty Jr., who had been keeping an eye on Marina throughout 1963, spoke with her early in November. Hosty told the Warren Commission that Mrs. Oswald had been "quite alarmed" by the interview. He did not mention, however, that Lee Oswald later visited his office, delivering a note warning the FBI to leave his wife alone. The bureau, preparing for Kennedy's trip to Dallas, did give the Secret Service the name of a potentially dangerous person in the area, but it was not Oswald.

Earlier this summer, the astonishing tale came to the attention of Tom Johnson, 33, former assistant press secretary to President Johnson and now publisher of the Dallas Times Herald. The Times Herald held off publishing its discovery for almost two months to give the FBI a chance to determine its accuracy. The story ran last week, under Johnson's by line, after FBI Director Clarence M. Kelley issued a statement to the Times Herald confirming its scoop. "FBI inquiries to date," declared Kelley, "establish that the note contained no references to President Kennedy or in any way would have forewarned of the subsequent assassination." Kelley added that the bureau's investigations "tend to corroborate that shortly after the assassination, the note in question was destroyed." But he did not say who might have destroyed it...."

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Destruction_of_the_Oswald_Note

"The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from several relevant witnesses, as did the contemporaneous Church Committee. The results of this were:

   Oswald definitely did visit the Dallas Field Office a week to two weeks
 prior to the assassination, looking for Agent Hosty, who had 
 recently visited his wife Marina.
 
   When told that Hosty was not in, Oswald left a note in an envelope which
  was unsealed.
   The note contained some sort of threat,
  but accounts varied widely as to whether Oswald threatened
  to "blow up the FBI" or merely "report this to higher authorities."
 
   Within hours after Oswald's murder on 24 Nov 1963,
  Hosty destroyed the note and a memorandum which Special-Agent-in-Charge
  Gordon Shanklin had ordered written on November 22. 
 

Hosty maintained that Shanklin, the head of hte Dallas Field Office, had ordered him to destroy the note. Shanklin denied ever having heard of the note until 1975, though Assistant Director William Sullivan did recall the incident. The House Select Committee on Assassinations reviewed the incident and did not find Shanklin's denial credible...." Ruidoso (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Ruidoso (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. If you read Hosty's book (see especially p. 158, which is included in the excerpt in the Google link above), you will see that he makes clear that the Secret Service had very strict rules for what the FBI should "bother them" about. If it wasn't a DIRECT THREAT TO THE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT, they didn't want to know about it. The FBI's other problems were the FBI's problems (no Department of Homeland Security in 1963). Of course, after the fact, the Secret Service pretended like mad and tried to suggest that their own rules were violated. But they didn't do that before the Warren Commission or anywhere else in public, because they could not have got away with it. Everybody knows the Secret Service is interested only in direct threats to their own charges. If Hosty had brought up threats to himself or his own organization, they've no doubt have frankly laughed at him.

As for the other part, Hosty's book makes clear what I had surmised, which was that although he knew the TSBD was on "Elm," he had only the vaguest idea of its physical location in Dallas (Elm is a long street). He found out about the presidental motorcade route the night before the assassination, but the plan was for it generally to go down Main Street, and there certainly wasn't a sign saying "Texas School Book Depository Here." It's an interesting question of what Hosty would have done, if he actually had realized that the president would drive right under/by Oswald's place of work. Would he have said to the Washington team: "Hey, guys, the motorcade is going to go right by a building where a Russian defector who doesn't like me, works..." "Yeah, so?" "well, he's a RUSSIAN DEFECTOR!" "So?" "And, he has threatened the FBI!" "Has he threatened the president or vice president?" "No...." "Well, Special Agent Hosty, you're a big boy, and we're sure you'll be fine. Let us know if you Hoover Boys need any help from us in weapons training...;)"

Anyway, if you find all this somehow conspiratorial, rather than after-the-fact bumbling and Monday morning quarterbacking, take it to JFK assassination conspiracy theories article. Please don't bother us with it here. SBHarris 05:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

SBHarris, Do you read what I post? You called me a "cold man" because you thought I was not taking into consideration that JFK had two speeches to make, needed time off after the Ft. Worth breakfast speech, especially due to his infirmities.... Yet you ignored my description of JFK's handlers putting him through the chore of boarding AF-1 in Ft. Worth and disembarking 20 minutes later at Dallas's Love Field, which put the distance to travel by limousine to the Trade Mart even further than if driven directly from Ft. Worth. How did those unnecessary moves not tax JFK further, in his frail condition? Remember, you gave consideration for JFK as the probable reason for the downtime after breakfast. All trivial, IMO, but you expanded on it.

Next, you wrote, "I don't care if Hosty did know LHO worked at the TSBD. LHO had no history of violence so far as Hosty knew, had made no threats against the president, and Hosty didn't now he was armed. It's not clear to me if Hosty even knew where the TSBD was. Or realized that the motorcade would pass it, before the assassination. This is all clear in retrospect."

It isn't about whether or not Hosty withheld intelligence that Oswald was a violent threat to the president, that was not the way you worded it...please read above what you wrote. What it is about is the Dallas FBI office destroying Oswald's note and then engaging in a 12 years long cover up.

I replied by posting proof Hosty and or his supervisor, Gordon Shanklin in Dallas destroyed evidence delivered to their office by Oswald which included threats. This matter was withheld from the WC, and either Hosty or Shanklin lied about this destruction of evidence when queried by government investigators in 1975.

I stand by my earlier point that Hosty had the address of Oswald's workplace, he may have shared it with the FBI New Orleans office and the address could have made its way to FBI HQ in DC. It is fact that Hosty and or Gordon Shanklin destroyed evidence; a threatening note written by Oswald, obstructed justice, and then lied during at least two investigations of this ancillary crime. http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page452.php

"...Mr. HOSTY. No, she didn't. She was quite friendly and invited me in, said this is the first time she had ever met an FBI agent. Very cordial....

....I asked her if she knew where he worked. After a moment's hesitation, she told me that he worked at the Texas School Book Depository near the downtown area of Dallas. She didn't have the exact address, and it is my recollection that we went to the phone book and looked it up, found it to be 411 Elm Street. Mr. STERN. You looked it up while you were there? Mr. HOSTY. Yes; that is my recollection that we looked it up in her telephone book to show it at 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Tex. ...

....Mr. STERN. You were acting for the New Orleans office at this time? Mr. HOSTY. At this time; yes, sir. Mr. STERN. In trying to locate him? Mr. HOSTY. Right. Mr. STERN. Had they asked you to try to determine what kind of work he was doing and whether he might be in a sensitive position? Mr. HOSTY. Well, this is automatically considered; yes. They didn't have to ask me. I knew I was to do that. Mr. DULLES. Did you clear this with the Dallas or Fort Worth office? How do you work out that liaison? Mr. HOSTY. How do you mean, sir? Mr. DULLES. I mean with the FBI. At this time this was the territory, I assume, of Dallas or Fort Worth. Mr. HOSTY. Right. Irving, Tex., is in the Dallas territory; yes, sir. Mr. DULLES. The Dallas territory? Mr. HOSTY. Right. Mr. DULLES. Did you clear or notify the Dallas office either before or after? Mr. HOSTY. You mean after I determined this? Mr. DULLES. Yes. Mr. HOSTY. Oh, yes, sir. This occurred on the 1st. This was a Friday. I returned to the Dallas office. I covered a couple of other leads on the way back. I got in shortly after 5 o'clock and all our stenos had gone home. This information has to go registered mail, and it could not go then until Monday morning. Monday morning---shall I continue? Mr. STERN. Yes. Mr. HOSTY. On Monday morning, I made a pretext telephone call to the Texas School Book Depository, I called up and asked for the personnel department, asked if a Lee Oswald was employed there. They said yes, he was. I said what address does he show? They said 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex., which I knew not to be his correct address...."

Again, I have made a reasonable, well supported argument for leaving the third paragraph of the Lead of the LHO article just the way it is now. If you insist on adding a disclaimer to it concerning the HSCA finding of a conspiracy, then accuracy and fairness to the readers of the Lead require similar disclaimers be displayed next to the descriptions of the WC and FBI investigations and findings. Ruidoso (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fourth break

I have to concur with SBHarris here. I have no idea what the point of this is. We know about Hosty, we know he destroyed the note. There's no need to go on about that for screens and screens. The question you aren't answering is: so what? Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"So what?" Before I made the first edit in the lead of the Lee Harvey Oswald article, the impression a reader received was that there were three investigations, concluded by 1964; they all determined Oswald was the lone assassin of president Kennedy. There was no mention in the three paragraphs of the lead that the investigation was reopened in the 1970s and a new conclusion, that Oswald was a part of a conspiracy, was determined. Is there a goal our policy of Wikipedia article uniformity, when an article is about a suspect in or convicted of a sensational murder or other crime of great interest? Oswald received no trial, no lawyer was appointed to represent his interests in any of the government investigations described in the article lead. Testimony was taken in secret in those investigation with no provision for an Oswald advocate to cross examine anyone who testified, or to examine and challenge any of the evidence presented. The Wikipedia article on Bruno Richard Hauptmann, a man who was convicted in an open court of kidnapping and murder in a crime of comparable notoriety. He was provided with attorneys who cross-examined witnesses and conducted discovery and examined and challenged evidence presented to a jury of Hauptmann's peers. Hauptmann was afforded appeals of his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme court, and after Hauptmann's conviction in court, Gov. Henry Hoffmann of New Jersey independently investigated the issue.

Yet, even after Hauptmann, (unlike Oswald, who receive none) received every opportunity to defend against the criminal charges against him in court, and then in appeals, this huge section describing the controversy over Hauptmann's guilt or innocence or participation in a conspiracy, is included in the Wikipedia article about him.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Hauptmann#Hauptmann.27s_guilt_questioned

Why are the standards of what can be include in the Oswald article so much more restrictive than what has been permitted to be included in the Hauptmann article, related to similar controversies? Ruidoso (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus intro on Oswald's life not JFK

The lede, intro section needs to summarize Oswald's life, not dwell on the JFK assassination. There are other articles to cover the JFK details:

• John F. Kennedy assassination, Single bullet theory, Warren Commission, etc.

Instead, the intro section of this article needs to recap Oswald:

"Oswald was born 2 months after his father died, and his mother moved him and 2 brothers to several different towns, while marrying a 3rd husband for 3 years, 1945-48. After attending 12 schools, around Fort Worth, New York City, and New Orleans, Oswald dropped out of 10th grade, at age 16, and worked as a clerk/messenger. Moving back to Texas, Oswald entered 10th grade in Fort Worth, but dropped out again, at age 17 in October 1956, to join the U.S. Marines, as had his brother Robert, after their half-brother John Pic joined the Coast Guard. Oswald received a hardship discharge (for mother's health) in 1959, but defected to the Soviet Union, for nearly 3 years. Having married Marina, the daughter of a Soviet security official, he re-defected back to the U.S. with her and their daughter, in June 1962."

Those events concern Oswald, not JFK, as the main focus of the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your perspective is right. The article must be about Oswald, not JFK, but if JFK's assassination had not occurred, he would not have an article. Pretty early in this article we need to at least mention reason for him having an article at all. HiLo48 (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD-- The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

With the manual of style being pretty clear here, the lead has to recognize Oswald as the reputed assassin of JFK. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)