Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Lee Harvey Oswald. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

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, or Single bullet theory, or Warren Commission,
or John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, 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)

Sooooo.... a couple of things here:

To extend some of my comments earlier: when I said that "this article is [I should have said should be] about Oswald minus the assassination to the extent that's possible," I meant to add that, according to this vision, everything in the current article after the Death section (i.e. everything in and after Investigations) ought to be moved to other articles about the death of JFK, theories, etc. (Maybe Mock Trials would stay, but actually I'm not sure what the function of that information is anyway.) In their place, there should be something very brief repeating whatever it is we can agree on for the lead about investigations, existence of other theories, or whatever, plus See alsos to the other article. The issues about JFK's death are extremely involved, and to try to cover Oswald's guilt or innocence without coordination and division of labor with in other articles, makes little sense. The article currently reviews various investigations (why is Garrison not discussed? FBI? Dallas PD?) then throws in "backyard photos." Such stuff should be elsewhere where a good treatment of them can be done
My just-previous point would make the most sense if the articles on JFK's death were better organized. Look at the "Garrison Investigation" portal the article carries now! Why isn't there a "JFK Assassination" portal? -- that's the scope that's needed. (I'm not volunteering on this, however, make no mistake there!)
The remaining points on this list are addressed to Ruidoso: whether Oswald had a trial etc. is of little significance. John Wilkes Booth had no trial either, yet the article on him describes him flat-out as, "an American stage actor who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln." What we say about Oswald needs to be more nuanced, of course, because the facts are so much less clear in JFK's death than in Lincoln's (rifle pokes out of 6th-floor window and shoots President hundreds of yards away, vs. man shoots President at close quarters, then jumps down to stage where hundreds in the audience recognize his face immediately). What I'm trying to illustrate is that lack of a trial doesn't mean, on its own, that there must always be permaneent doubt; a trial would have been just one more potential source of data which, unfortunately in this case, we don't have. Most topics Wikipedia covers have never been the subject of a trial, and yet assertions of fact are made in those articles.
The reason the question of Hauptman's guilt is discussed in his main article is that (a) doing so doesn't make the article intolerable long, which the Oswald article borders on; (b) discussion his guilt or innocence mostly revolves around him, evidence found at his house, etc., not a cast of thousands, evidence of one kind of another from all over the country, multiple investigations, and so on as with JFK. (Actually, if you look at Bruno Hauptmann vs Lindbergh kidnapping you'll see there's a very well-designed division of labor between them.) The JFK Assassination needs, if someone really worked it out, a large number of related articles on various side events, witnesses, the various investigations, and a main article to tie the others together. So it's not that there are "different standards for what can be included" on Oswald vs. Hauptman, it's just a question of how best to split up the much larger amount of material that there is on Oswald-JFK than there is on Lindbergh-Hauptmann.
The draft lead we've been discussing at such length is designed to say just enough about the question of Oswald's involvement to give the reader an overview, and point him elsewhere. With luck it will offend as few people as possible and thereby stand the test of time.
The lead as it stands is pretty much the way you left it. We started this discussion because an edit war seemed brewing. I left your version stand as a courtesy while discussion continues. But you really should have discussed here before making such a high-visibility change. If we don't reach consensus on what the new text should be, it should probably go back to what it was before you edited, not stay as you edited.
You fundamentally misunderstand the relationship among the various investigations. Different bodies carry out their investigations for their own purposes: the Warren Commission had a list of tasks given it by Johnson which it tried to discharge, the FBI carried out a somewhat different investigation in keeping (one hopes) with its duty under law, the Dallas Police had a murder case to close, Garrison believed a certain crime had been committed in his jurisdiction, and so on. HCSA investigated in keeping with Congress' duty to look into matters before legislating, and also in its general role as a check against bad work by the Executive branch. It is mistaken to view HCSA as "reopening" the Warren Comm.'s (or other) investigation "and a new conclusion" (as you say) "that Oswald was part of a conspiracy, was determined" -- as if the newly-"determined" conclusion overrides the others. There's no such hierarchy in American government. HCSA's was one more of several, albeit one that had the advantage of hindsight and new information and techniques (which may or may not have been helpful, in the final analysis). But it doesn't have some special authority relative to Warren.
Partly for the reasons just given, I'd rather avoid a specific count of "how many" official investigations, partly because (as with coming to consensus here on Wikipedia) it's not the number of voices, but the quality of the arguments that counts, and partly because by doing so we avoid arguments about what's "official." Warren, FBI, Dallas PD, HSCA -- those are definitely "official." Garrison too, I guess. But... suppose the Dallas City Council (or whatever) decided they didn't like the way Dallas PD handled the case, so they looked into it some and issued a report -- is that an official investigation? If what used to be called the National Bureau of Standards, or the Army, wrote something about what the ballistics evidence implies, is that an "official" investigation? If we can cut the lead to statements that almost everyone agrees on -- that Oswald was the sniper, whatever else might have been going on, then we can say that numerous official investigations agreed on that, please click here to learn more. Pediod, and we don't need to argue anymore. At least not in this article.
Ramsquire, your word reputed may have been the one I was looking for when I came up with conventionally held to be a while back. So how about:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) is generally reputed to be the sniper who shot and killed 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<ref>cite Warren, FBI, Dallas PD</ref> (but not all)<ref>cite HCSA</ref>official investigations concluded that Oswald acted completely alone, numerous theories ~~have been put forth proposing~~propose either that others encouraged or assisted him, or that in fact he had no involvement at all.

EEng (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC) (P.S. to Ramsquire: sorry, but I would defintely dispute the idea that "elites" all believe in lone-gunman, and only "the public" believes in conspiracies.)

Well, I would at least, summarize Oswald's life, in text following the JFK controversy, noting his move to Dallas, New Orleans, travels to Mexico, and return to Dallas. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To EEng. First, I can live with this intro. You can place me in the support column. Second, that's not what I was saying. What I was trying to say is that the overwhelming consensus among them is lone gunman (sort of like climatologists and global warming). I don't mean to imply that its unanimous or that there isn't variances in thoughts in the group.

To Wikid77-- IMHO, your suggestions would work better in the body of the article. I think that adding more biographical info in the lead would make it too long and would go against the MOS, without a real need to do so. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be "the sniper who assassinated President... John F Kennedy... ". "[S]niper who shot" is pretty redundant, and the event is best described as an assassination, not as "shot" nor as "shot & killed". We can link thus to the assassination of JFK and to JFK. The desire to delimit the article by using hatnotes should not interfere with good writing.--JimWae (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How about sniper who sniped? Just kidding. I prefer to avoid saying Oswald was "the assassin" because even among people who think Oswald did the actually shooting, some think there were nonetheless other "assassins" involved, even if they didn't pull the trigger. Sniper who shot and killed carries fewer connotations for people to disagree with. EEng (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But, "according to several (actually "all") official investigations", he was the only one who shot (rather than just "shot at") JFK. He is also reputed to be the sniper who assassinated JFK - whether assisted or not, he is reputed to have assassinated JFK. "Generally reputed" is also pretty weak, like it was a rumor or something--JimWae (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so hung up on the word assassin? In context it says nothing more than does shot and killed: when the target is the President, that it's an assassination is obvious.
I've already explained why attempting to give a "how many" of "official" investigations invites trouble; all official investigations invites trouble even more.
Reputed implies not rumor, but open and common belief. If you can suggest a stronger word that stops short of it's-a-fact or implication of universal belief, please propose. But I think anything like was, according to [NUMBER/ALL] of [TYPE OF AUTHORITY WE THINK YOU OUGHT TO FIND CONVINCING] will lead to trouble.
So can you live with the text proposed, or not?

EEng (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

An alternative to reputed comes to mind:

EEng's proposal

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) is [generally reputed OR presumed OR generally presumed] to be the sniper who shot and killed 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<ref>cite Warren, FBI, Dallas PD</ref> (but not all)<ref>cite HCSA</ref>official investigations concluded that Oswald acted completely alone, numerous theories propose either that others encouraged or assisted him, or that in fact he had no involvement at all.

EEng (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still oppose this because this minimizes the investigations. I will put up or shut up and offer a version of my own:

Gamaliel's proposal

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.

Oswald was a former US Marine who had briefly defected to the Soviet Union. Arrested by for the killings of Kennedy and police officer J.D. Tippit, Oswald was killed in police custody and on live television by nightclub owner Jack Ruby.

Investigations by the FBI, Dallas Police Department, and the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations later, using disputed acoustic evidence, concluded that Oswald assassinated Kennedy as part of a conspiracy, but did not definitively identify any other conspirators. The Kennedy assassination has spawned numerous conspiracy theories regarding Oswald's participation and guilt which have taken hold in the popular imagination.

Thoughts? Gamaliel (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The text already under discussion intentionally avoids highlighting certain investigations, for reasons discussed at great length above, summarized as: this is an article about the life of LHO, not about competing ideas about the JFK assassination; it is impossible to do justice to those ideas in this article; it is indeed undesirable to attempt to address them here, since they're more appropriately addressed in other articles and discussion should be centralized there; experience shows that any attempt to summarize the evidence leads to one side or the other feeling shortchanged. Your text is very much like that proposed by Ramsquire 10 days ago; he has since endorsed the text under discussion (or more precisely, a somewhat earlier version of it). EEng (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I haven't ignored the discussion, I just disagree with it. I understand why you want to minimize this information, but I think some of the versions proposed do too much minimization, in favor of trivia like Oswald's schools and jobs. Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

None of the versions under consideration says anything about jobs or schools. It's not enough to assert "too much minimization" -- you need to explain why you feel one level or another of minimization is appropriate. My reasoning is stated just above. What's yours? EEng (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The version at the very top of this section is a fine example of one proposed that contains, in my opinion, too much extraneous information regarding those very topics. Those topics are biographical trivia, the debate about Oswald's guilt is central to his importance, what particular blue collar job he held or where he went to elementary school is not. I assumed my use of the word "trivia" in the previous post here was self-explanatory as to my reasoning regarding why I favored minimizing that material. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposal you're talking about, by Wikid77, was never in serious consideration. The two proposals on the table (both given just a bit above here) are yours and "mine" (though actually incorporating many people's contributions). Can you address yourself to those two? Specifically, given the discussion to date, why is it a good idea to reintroduce then names of specific investigations, which was precisely what began the trouble which led to this discussion? Please help the consensus process by explaining why you believe your proposal is preferable, or perhaps by combining into a hybrid proposal that takes account of the reasonable opinions expressed by participants over the last 3 weeks. EEng (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted my comments regarding a specific version, all you had to do is ask. I don't think the names of investigations are extraneous detail, and eliminating them turns the guilt of Oswald from specific investigative finding into the vague mush of "some people think he did it". This would be detrimental to the article as readers deserve clearly stated and specific facts and reasoning, and minimizing the guilt findings would serve to inadvertently push conspiracy POV. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that you know which proposal that rest of us are talking about, we can get down to the point: the proposed "EEng" text (though I dislike puting my name on it) doesn't shy away from Oswald's guilt as the sniper whose shots killed K, because (almost miraculously) it is both a statement of fact on which all but the most extreme theories concur and also a completely adequate descritpion of what Oswald did that day. That's why it was chosen. It is so generally accepted that it doesn't need a listing of specific investigations, especially not in the lead. In fact, to do so would tend to suggest that this one bare statement is less generally accepted than it is. This isn't making "mush" of the question of his guilt -- states it quite clearly, actually -- but instead very crisply separates out the question of anybody else's guilt (and any residual fringe theories about Oswlad's guilt) to other articles, where it belongs. Perhaps you'll wish to respond, but after that I suggest we both wait until others weigh in. EEng (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

'Now that you know which proposal that rest of us are talking about'. Is that really necessary? I think I've had my fill of snark today. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As the proposed text on the table was directly above where you commented, and since the text you addressed instead had been roundly rejected by everyone, yes, I was annoyed. But I apologize for showing my annoyance. EEng (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest as a compromise that we use paragraphs 1 and 3 of Gamaliel's version and paragraph 2 of EENG's to finalize the lead. Honestly I don't recall this much discussion over the lead of this article prior to EEng's arrival a few weeks ago. I do admit that my activity on this project was about nil for a few months though, so what do I know?. That being said I DO appreciate his efforts to improve the article and lead especially. However, I simply don't see the level of dispute that would necessitate changing the lead in the first place despite my continued support for various proposals. Further, Gamaliel raises an interesting point that I admit I had forgotten. The reason we decided to list the investigations years ago was due to accusations that the lead had taken a side (admittedly the accusations were baseless and came from a now banned notorious POV pusher). In addition, by explicitly naming the investigations, it allows the lead to stay away from interpretation as much as possible. The hardest conspiracy believer is unable to reasonably argue that those investigations didn't find Oswald guilty. However, they can and will argue "reputed, presumed, accepted, etc." In a perfect world, and wiki, it should read LHO is the assassin/sniper... But since that's not the case, I think Gamaliel's first and third's paragraph is a better solution as it is explicitly repeating the facts and conclusion without the attempt to summarize and thus interpret. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this isn't much of a compromise, as the 2nd par was never at issue. The problem isn't that conspiracy theorists will deny what investigations X,Y,Z concluded, but rather that they'll say that mentioning them, while omitting Investigation A (which criticizes X,Y, and Z) isn't fair. Then if A is added, someone wants criticism of A to be mentioned, and so on. This isn't fanciful, but the actual experience of this discussion and the edit dispute that preceded it. My attention to this point was mostly because of Ruidoso's objections, but he seems to have dropped out, making it seem like I've gone to a lot of trouble for nothing. But whether they're participating now or now, sooner or later someone will appear saying that official conclusions have been featured to the detriment of other theories, so why not head off such objections in advance? I still believe (a) that naming or quantifying the investigations in the text in this article invites unnecessary criticism, and actually weakens the assertion that Oswald was the sniper -- but see the change I prose below; (b) talking about which investigations are "official" also leads to trouble; (c) X,Y,Z said lone, but A said conspiracy, but A used disputed evidence is just completely unnecessary -- picks one thread of controversy out of many possible; (d) where one article has an explicit division of content from closely related ones, that division should be made by formal mechanisms such as hatnotes or "See Also", not through links obscured behind pieces of the text. (I've added the latter back below for the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't mind putting them both in and waiting to see if anyone objects for style/format reasons.) Also, the reference to "popular imagination" I think will meet with objection sooner or later as a put-down. There are several other specific wordings here (such as avoidance of the work assassinated, and inclusion of the from a window of the TSBD) which address concerns raised earlier.

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to a series of Federal and other investigations, the sniper who shot and killed 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<ref>cite Warren, FBI, Dallas PD</ref> (but not all)<ref>cite HCSA</ref>official investigations concluded that Oswald acted completely alone, numerous theories propose either that others encouraged or assisted him or, conversely, that he had no involvement at all.

I must disagree with your contention that the lead has continually been a source of dispute. This month long discussion we are currently in, is the only serious discussion of changing the lead that has been proposed. The language re: the number and names of the investigations was placed in the lead sometime in late 2006/2007. In September of 09, someone replaced that language with "Oswald is the assassin", which instituted a discussion that lasted half a day. I replaced that edit with the language that was there until Rudioso showed up about a month ago. The point in relaying this history is that the edit history does not support that there has been some longstanding feud about the language of this introduction or that mentioning the investigations will somehow allow these discussion to continue. In fact, the actual history tells us that the only time objections arise is when editors change it to state Oswald is the assassin. Rudioso is the first and only editor who's objected to the statements of investigations since it's been introduced. Now, I'm all for trying something new, but I think that since none of the proposals have garnered the support required to claim a new consensus it is best that we go back to what was there before Rudioso briefly objected. That version clearly had consensus, something that no new proposal has garnered. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the contention over various points I was referring to was in the edits and discussions over the last month, not before that. As far as I'm concerned regturning to the original is a relief. I didn't have a problem with the old lead either, and since Ruidoso has gone silent for the last few days (despite making other edits) we may as well. But I was so hoping to get this year's Patience of a Saint JFK Article Mediation Award. Maybe next year. I copied in the old text below to be sure we're all talking about the same thing. However, can we agree to add the hatnote? I do think it clarifies the scope of the article and might make future discussions easier:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to ~~three~~four government investigations, the assassin of President of the United States John F. Kennedy, who was fatally shot in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.^{[n 1]}

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 had been shot on a Dallas street shortly after Kennedy was killed. Soon suspected in the death of Kennedy as well, Oswald denied involvement in either killing. Two days later, while being transferred from police headquarters to the county jail, Oswald was mortally wounded by nightclub owner Jack Ruby in full view of television cameras broadcasting live.

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.

So, OK? EEng (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I'll make sure to second your nomination for the award. Change three to four so we include the Dallas investigation, and i say plug it in or should I say back in. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess since consensus seems to have completely fallen apart I should just go ahead? Once the dust has settled I might propose some piecewise changes that came up during the discussions. But not for a while! I do fear that by mentioning 4 at the beginning, but failing to mention 1 of the 4 as dissenting at the end, we're gonna get in trouble! EEng (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Expanded intro with summary of life

29-July-2010: At the end of the lede/intro section, I have added a summary of Oswald's life, including the attack on General Walker, travels to Mexico, and work at the Texas School Book Depository. As discussed earlier, I linked to the conspiracy-theories article to avoid expanding that portion. The added text is as follows:

... ... (see: John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories).
"Oswald had been 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 in July 1956, Oswald entered 10th grade in Fort Worth, but dropped out again, at age 17 in October, to join the U.S. Marines, as had his brother Robert, after their half-brother John Pic joined the Coast Guard. In 1959, Oswald received a hardship discharge (for mother's health), 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."
"They settled in Dallas, with his mother and brother Robert. Oswald worked 3 months as a welder, then worked in a printing shop from October until being fired in April 1963. Oswald was later suspected of the April 10 attempt to shoot General Edwin Walker, using a rifle (and handgun) he received via mail in March. Oswald and Marina quickly moved to New Orleans in April, but she returned to Dallas in late September 1963, when he traveled to Mexico with failed plans to go to Cuba and the USSR. Instead, he returned to Dallas and began working at the Texas School Book Depository on October 16, 1963. The FBI was investigating Marina as a possible Soviet spy. That was one month before the shootings of Kennedy and Tippit."
"Oswald died on November 24, 1963, in police custody, after being shot by Jack Ruby. He was survived by his wife Marina, 2-year-old daughter June, and 1-month-old daughter Rachel."

NOTE: Writing an article's lede summary text will always be a balancing act: there is no "perfect balance" to decide overview versus details. However, by wiki-linking to lower sections in the article (such as for General Walker), then many details can be avoided, as a method to encourage further reading by direct link to the detailed sections. As discussed earlier, the JFK assassination is summarized first, due to keen interest in that topic, even though it occurred at the end of Oswald's life. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"They settled in Dallas, with his mother and brother Robert. Oswald worked 3 months as a welder, then worked in a printing shop from October until being fired in April 1963" is not lede material - nor is anything else recently added needed in the lede JimWae (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't disagree with sketching his life out a bit per se, but we can leave out much of the level of detail in the current version. For example, the phrase "itinerant laborer" would cover a lot in a little space. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77- I've taken the initiative to remove the added language on the basis of the thoughts expressed here. I hope there are no hard feelings. Feel free to add said information into the body of the text, if it is not there already. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ramsquire. I don't want to discourage Wikid77, but that material was far, far too detailed for the lead. And I've been putting off saying this, but the same goes for the list of schools Oswald attended. The text already says his attended X different schools in Y different cities over the short span of Z years. That tells us something about his childhood. What do we need to know the exact names of the schools for? And with the precise dates of attendance? Do you have any thoughts about my poposed lead (see above)?EEng (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As an experiment, I've introduced something I used with good effect (I like to think, anyway) in another article: a "Notes" section. This is similar to References, except the idea is that entries in References have only citations to sources, but not extra information about the subject. "Notes" entries are for stuff that might interest the reader, but which interrupt the flow of the text, such as the list of schools. In the main text, Notes are indicated by, for example, ^[n1] instead of the usual ^[1] -- that's how the reader knows whether there's "more to learn" by following the link. The only problem is, I don't think anyone knows about this scheme except me. Anyway, I moved a number of entries from Refs to Notes as an experiment -- what do you think? EEng (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oswalds childhood details.

Although no proof of conspiracy, a curious coincidence in Lee Oswalds childhood in New Orleans is that for a time he lived with his Uncle who was descibed as a 'Bookmaker' (also as a driver) for Mr Carlos Marcello. Mr Marcello when asked if he ever met lee Oswald said he never was aware of him. Also the quotes from Lee Oswalds Diary. Hanwriting experts who have examined Oswalds Diary say, while it is his handwriting, he appears to have written all the entries at the same time, and he seems drunk most of the time writing his Diary.Johnwrd (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead (again) (again)

Several days ago, I made an edit to this article, removing the phrase, "according to four government investigations", from the first sentence. I had no idea that this was such a contentious topic, and to be honest, I didn't even look at this page, which I now know I should have. My apologies for breaking any protocols. I would like to ask why this wording is necessary. While it would be reasonable to include speculations about various conspiracies, I think that it has been sufficiently established that Oswald was the assassin. Adding, "according to four government investigations", seems to give the impression that there is doubt about Oswald's guilt. While true, it is marginal, and in my opinion, does not merit inclusion in the article's first sentence. 2tuntony (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is the way it is because X months/years ago that was what consensus settled on (at least that's what Ramsquire says, and I believe him) and a recent attempt to gather consensus on a revised lead fell apart when the editor who was most adamant about changing it suddenly dropped out of the discussion, after which no one seemed to mind just sticking with the old lead. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the old (i.e. now-existing) lead, but I think it could be better. But I certainly don't have the energy to open a new discussion so soon. Read through the long discussion above, for starters, to see why this is so complicated. As you will see in the discussion, those who think Oswald didn't shoot and kill Kennedy are at the fringe even among conspiracy theorists -- most conspiracy theories revolve around the idea that he was encouraged or helped (the help sometimes theorized to extend to there having been a second gunman somewhere) a/o that Ruby's killing of LHO was part of some coverup, a/o you name it. So the question in crafting a lead is how to treat, not some question of whether Oswald killed Kennedy, but the question of whether he was alone in doing so. That's what people get so upset about. So read upwards and back into the archive, and then open a new discussion here --- if you dare! [wrings hands menacingly, diabolical laughter] EEng (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The wording "according to four government investigations" is most accurate and honest. Since he was shot and killed days after his arrest, his guilt was never established in a court of law. Overwhelming evidence suggests he committed the crime, but under the US legal system he deserves and receives the benefit of the doubt, having never gone to trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.128.27 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

EEng, it became quite obvious, in the July "go round" in this discussion, that there will never be a change allowed to the lead that does not intend to leave the impression that Oswald was proved to be the guilty, lone assassin. This impression is less than accurate, but is reinforced with the "four government investigations, found, by 1964, etc.," or words to that effect. Visible in your last post is your declaration of being satisfied with this misleading impression in the lead. I inserted, a "but" back in July. It was a quote from the conclusion of the HCSA. You, SBHArris, Gamaliel, et al, do not want anything like that in the lead. It would change the lead to leave a casual reader with the impression that Oswald's guilt and whether he was part of a conspiracy are not entirely settled matters. Can't have that at wikipedia, can we? I can't fathom why you would maintain a misleading lead, mentioning only findings by clearly flawed "government investigations" all concluded by 1964. Gamaliel says on his talk page that the LHO article is the one he is most proud of. He also created and defended the bio page of John C. McAdams. You're all "neutral" but you steadfastly defend an inaccurate article lead, here. It is designed to give an inaccurate first impression, and it does that. Ruidoso (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

--- My concern with this lead is that is does give the impression that he was the shooter. Whether he did it, a group of people, green Martians or whatever has not been proven in a court of law, the ONLY place in the US justice system that any person can be found to be guilty. I would like to see the lead changed to read that he is the primary suspect or some such language and then mention the findings of the Government commissions. To say or imply that he is guilty of the shooting is clearly a falsehood. My concern is a technical one and has no interest in who did or did not shoot, only that a mentionir implication of guilt or innocence is accurate within the confines of the legal system. Wiki4chris (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So should the intro to John Wilkes Booth be changed as well under these grounds? Gamaliel (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Question concerning Oswald's location when he was shot by Jack Ruby

The article states the Lee Harvey Oswald was shot when he was being transported from Police Headquarters to the County Jail. As I recall and as the New York Times reported, Oswald was shot when he was being transferred from the City Jail to the County Jail. As far as I know, the City Jail and Police Headquarters are in different locations. Once before, I edited the article to show that Oswald was shot as he was being transferred from the City Jail to the County Jail, but somebody changed it to show that he was shot at Police Headquarters. I don't know if the Dallas Police Headquarters and City Jail are in the same building, but Oswald was definitely shot in the City Jail corridor.

Anthony22 (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What do the sources say? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dallas city jail was in the Dallas Municipal Building, 106 S. Harwood. [1] It was THE "Dallas City Hall" from the early 1900s until a new City Hall was commissioned in 1978, and now it's called the "Old City Hall". It was THE City Hall and Municipal Court in 1963, and also the headquarters of the Dallas police. So it's all the same building, since this is your basic municipal building that had all the city justice facilities in it. It's in the garage of this building that Oswald was shot, two days after JFK's death. It still houses the Municipal Court and is called the Old City Hall. Oswald was taken here first to be arrested and charged. Almost exactly 48 hours later, Oswald was being transferred from the basement of this building, to a site a few blocks away at the County Court Building (also in Dallas), which also housed the Dallas County Jail. Here the state murder trial would presumably take place, and the security was better. Ruby would eventually be tried in the same County building, and spend most of the rest of his remaining 3 years of life there, in a cell. This was at the 1892 "Old Red" Dallas County Courthouse, on Commerce and Houston Streets [2]. Which is not far from the book depository. The County Courthouse that replaced it in function wouldn't be built next-door, until 1966. I haven't been able to discover if Ruby himself was transferred to the new building next door, before Dec., 1966, when he became ill with the lung cancer that would kill him the next month (He died at Parkland Memorial Hospital, where JFK and Oswald were pronounced dead). S B H arris 03:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

CE 817 Oswald's New Orleans PO Box Application

In the LHO article, why is footnote 102 described as linking to CE 697, while resolving to a link picturing CE 817, an image of Oswald's New Orleans P.O. Box application? and A. J. Hidell was the alternate name on the post office box rented by Oswald, to which the weapon was sent 102 ^ CE 697 shows A. J. Hidell as alternate name on Oswald P.O. Box

Why does the text preceding footnote 102 claim that the "murder weapon" was shipped to the referenced New Orleans P.O. box, while the Warren Commission claimed the shipment of the "murder weapon" was destined for P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas?^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruidoso (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably a mistake in getting the wrong CE image. The weapons were surely shipped to Oswald while he was living in Dallas in March 1963, and to his Dallas PO box, not his New Orleans PO box. S B H arris 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've looked into it. Oswald rented his Dallas P.O. Box 2915 under his own name of "Lee H. Oswald," from Oct. 9 1962 to May. 14, 1963. After which his mail was transferred to his New Orleans P.O. Box which he had rented under his name with Hidell as alternate, as we know because that application was NOT thrown away. Also, the change of address form from Dallas to New Orleans in May exists, and is in Oswald's writing. Oswald's application for the Dallas Box is in the Warren report, and the writing was identified as his (and of course the name is his). Thus, Oswald got mail from the Dallas box during the time the murder rifle was shipped to this Dallas box address, from Klein's, leaving Klein's on March 20, 1963. Both rifle and pistol were ordered from separate companies (the pistol came from an L.A. company, but also went to the Dallas P.O. 2915) and both were ordered using the name of A.J. Hidell, an alias Marina knew about, and knew was a joke alternate of "Fidel" (as in Castro, whom Oswald admired). Both weapons happened to ship from different locations on the same day, March 20. Whether A.J. Hidell was ever used as an alternate receipt name on the Dallas P.O. box is not known (alternate name records were destroyed when the box rental was up). But they are moot, as anybody having access to a Dallas P.O. box at the time could get any package that arrived for it, by simply presenting the notice of package-receipt at the post office window, no ID required (since the fact that you have the receipt shows that you have access to the box-- it's the same as simply retrieving a letter or a small package from the box itself; there's no extra security for packages too large for the box!) The Dallas postal inspector Harry D. Holmes testified to this fact in the Commission report (see reference). Further, we know that this process worked, because Oswald ordered his pistol that way to P.O. 2915 in Dallas (again under the name of Hidell) and yet certainly eventually got it himself, since he had it on him when arrested. And used it to kill Tipitt! See http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0073a.htm Warren Report p. 121 of 912. S B H arris 21:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What caused him to become a suspect in the first place?

I really can't seem to find this information out. 184.96.228.177 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Read "Mafia Kingfish", the story of Carlos Marcello & JFK. Oswald was a patsy in the assassination of Kennedy, and was assassinated himself by a low-level Mafia hitman - only to be assassinated yet again by this hideously ignorant, one-sided Wikipedia entry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.0 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please. If so, it was the most perfect frame-up in the history of man. Oswald became a suspect by name after it was obvious that the rifle shots directed at JFK came from the 6th floor of the TSBD (people on the floor below heard the shots, other witnesses saw a shooter at that window, with a rifle). The shooter was described as a white male, average build, aged 30, and that man was being sought, even while police were looking for Oswald by name. Why the last? Because the TSBD was sealed a few minutes after the assassination, and after that, Oswald turned out to be the ONE employee who worked there, unaccounted for after they took roll call-- even though he'd been there all morning. So an APB went out for him, by name. But he'd already been arrested for the murder of a policeman (who'd stopped him on description-alone) before the police realized they also had the TSBD employee they were looking for. One cop pointed to a man already handcuffed to a bench and said "You want Lee Oswald? There he sits!" S B H arris 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oswald was, at the very least, involved in the assassination; and could have pulled the whole thing off by himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The murderous actions of the nut Jack Ruby made sure that Oswald never got the chance to defend himself, which was his legal right. How JD Tippit realised Oswald was the assassin we'll never know as the description given out was very vague.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"slender white male, about 30 years old, 5 feet 10 inches (1.78 m) tall, and weighing about 165 pounds (75 kg)."-- I would think any officer who saw Oswald would think he matched that description. Also remember, there was no indication that Tippit ever attempted to arrest Oswald as a suspect in the assassination. At best the evidence shows Oswald was called or came over to the officer's vehicle, and then shot Tippit through the window. Even in 1963 I don't think officers would try to arrest someone in that fashion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Oswald never lived long enough to go to trial where he would have cleared up the mystery of the Tippit-Oswald verbal exchange through the open car window.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither did Tippit. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's sad that in the maelstrom of JFK's assassination, Oswald's killing by Ruby, the shooting of JD Tippit has been completely overlooked by journalists, filmmakers, biographers. Before Wikipedia came along he was just a footnote to the events of 22 November 1963.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There was plenty about it at the time, and as I recall he was initially brought in for the Tippit shooting. Security was incredibly lax. I've seen kinescopes from the police station which occasionally caught Ruby on camera, on Saturday yet. He was known to the cops and had easy access. By Sunday, if not before, he had decided to shoot Oswald, and I think he somehow thought he was being a hero. Ruby wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree. As far as Oswald, what I recall is the brief "hallway interview" he had in the station, after appearing to have gotten a bit roughed-up by police interrogators (though that might have happened at the time of his arrest), and when a reporter asked him if he had killed the President, he replied with an obviously rehearsed comment, something like, "I have not been accused of that, in fact I didn't even know about it until you asked me that question." Right. He was "dirty", as the police say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Oswald appeared to have been full of contempt for the police and the journalists.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No doubt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

SBHarris, you should be ashamed to call yourself an "editor". Your first arguments are vague and disconnected...noises heard from the fifth floor, a man spotted at a sixth floor window..."white male, average build, age 30..." Six stories up from street level, and a reliable identification?? Oswald was 24....yet you deliver this as if it is obvious why he was almost instantaneously made THE SUSPECT! How does any of that answer the question asked, What caused him to become a suspect in the first place? Your spin seems more like that of a paid shill, than of an independent, impartial, informed editor. : http://books.google.com/books?id=UppSEdmK8oMC&pg=PA314&lpg=PA314&dq=book+depository+role+call&source=bl&ots=SEeiVBprTT&sig=b_jiqI76StetpMYjnulVlSqXdns&hl=en&ei=_VAgTcObCsWqlAewg5yADA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy By Jim Marrs - Page 314

"Employees Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person missing and authorities immediately began a search for him. Like so much other information in this case, this story is simply untrue. To begin with, most Depository employees were outside viewing the motorcade at the time of the shooting and were prevented from returning to work by police. During the first role call, dozens of Depository employees were missing. By the time it was determined that Oswald was gone - about 2:30 P.M. - he was already in police custody.

This was confirmed in 1981 by Dallas Morning News reporter, Kent Biffle, who recalled that day in a lengthy article based on his notes of that day. Biffle wrote: ...Hours dragged by. The building superintendent showed up with some papers in his hand. I listened as he told detectives about Lee Harvey Oswald failing to show up at a roll call. My impression was that there was an earlier roll call that had been inconclusive because several employees were missing. This time, however, all were accounted for, except Oswald. I jotted down the Oswald information.... Neither the police in the building nor the superintendent knew that Oswald was already under arrest." ...and: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=118224&relPageId=41 "The Myth of the Roll Call" by Mark Bridger - Ruidoso (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The big mystery is what caused Officer Tippit to suspect Oswald and call him over to the car, bearing in mind the extemely vague description that had been put out (slender, white male, aged 30, etc.) and the fact that Oswald was only 24, and at the time of their encounter he was five miles away from Dealey Plaza-just 45 minutes after the shooting!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We'll never know, but the fact is that he did. It's quite possible that if Oswald hadn't been armed and given him a good story, he would have been let go. Instead, Oswald shot him dead. THAT was seen by several people, who now had an ever better description of him, and that was the one that got him tracked into the shoe shop and the movie theater: the description for the cop-killing, not the description from the eye witnesses at the book depository. Yes, it's true that at the moment Oswald shot Tipitt, he was not a wanted man by name. I stand corrected on that. S B H arris 22:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

True, we will never know. But Tippit likely, as all cops in Dallas that day, was on high alert, ready to question anyone for the slightest reason. Perhaps he saw Oswald walking a bit fast, looking less relaxed than one might expect. Hell, he wasn't even looking at Oswald when he walked out of the car. The FACT is Oswald shot Tippit, and THAT led to the arrest. Why this is so mysterious to so many tells me that for too long too many have been cowed by b.s. from conspiracy authors. Canada Jack (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There's been some speculation, based on differing witness testimony about which direction Oswald was walking, that Oswald turned around and started walking the other direction when he spotted Tippit's cruiser. That's a big red flag to any policeman, especially during a manhunt. Also, the Dallas police stopped a lot of people and even raided a library like they raided the Texas Theater. But Oswald was the only guy they stopped who shot a cop. Gamaliel (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Lone Gunman

"It is of some note that Carolyn Arnold, a secretary in the Book Depository, claimed that she noticed Oswald in the second floor lunchroom between 12:15p and 12:25p. She said that it appeared he was eating his lunch at the time. This would tend to conflict with the official government position that Oswald was the lone assassin"

How? I don't understand this logic at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.184.212 (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be an attempt to insert POV into the article. I've reverted with a note to discuss here. Thanks for the heads up. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Police interrogation

Last night, SBHarris slipped in this rewording, "...Both the murder weapon and the pistol in Oswald's possession at arrest had earlier been shipped (at separate times) to Oswald's Dallas P.O. Box 2915, as ordered by "A. J. Hidell".[104]" Unfortunately, this edit was not vetted here, before he made it, and, it is not accurate. The revolver (no "pistol" was involved) was shipped to Railway Express in Dallas, not to Box 2915, and there were outstanding C.O.D. charges of $19.95 plus a service charge, due to be paid by the receiver. The problems with the accuracy of SBHarris's edit were not resolved...details are at this link, http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0193b.htm so why make such a dubious change to the article?
1.) Railway Express was the shipper, that shipper could not ship to a PO Box.
2.) No evidence has been found to indicate where, or even if, the revolver shipped to Hidell was ever picked up in Dallas.
3.) No evidence was produced to show that the revolver could have been picked up at the Dallas PO Box. Railway Express was prohibited by law from shipping to a PO Box, and money was still owed on the shipment.
4.) The link I provided only shows that there was testimony and paperwork indicating that the COD and service charges were paid. That WC document is for an order of a revolver that differs from the order form, in description and price.
5.) There is not enough proof that the Mannlicher Carcano rifle purported to have been recovered from the sixth floor of the TSBD was "the murder weapon", (or that it had even been fired on that day) to support the description the way it is worded in SBHarris's edit, and there is even less proof that the Mannlicher Carcano entered into evidence was the weapon the government claimed that Oswald had ordered. The order form in evidence describes a rifle with a different length barrel than the one claimed to have been recovered at the TSBD. Multiple witnesses claimed Oswald carried a package to the TSBD on the morning of November 22, that was not more than 27" in length, impossible if the "murder weapon" was any similar disassembled Mannlicher. Isn't it troubling that the government produced no witness who saw Oswald carrying a package of a realistic length to a rifle, on that key morning?

SBHArris needs to hold himself to the same standards of supporting citations required for edits, as he holds everyone else to. Unless there is proof that someone picked up the revolver at the Dallas Railway Express office, or at PO Box 2915, the edit should be reverted. If it was picked up at PO Box 2915, as the edit now says it was, the issues of how Railway Express could have shipped it there, and how the outstanding charges were paid to permit that to happen, and there is the nagging contradiction that such a shipment to a PO Box by that shipper was prohibited by law. Ruidoso (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the above until today. Oswald ordered the handgun ("pistol" CAN properly be used as the generic term for any handgun) from a PO address. Probably it was not delivered to the PO box, but COD card sent to there, and Oswald picked it up from the Railway Express Office 7 blocks away after paying the COD fee [3]. I'll change the text to reflect that both weapons were ordered to Oswald's PO address, but only one was actually shipped directly to the PO box. As though it makes any difference-- the gun that killed Tippet was physically found on Oswald at capture, and it is surely the gun that was ordered from Seaport Traders by somebody giving Oswald's PO address from a return. Oswald had the gun on him and used it to kill Tippet-- are you really suggesting that somebody ELSE ordered that gun from Oswald's mailbox?

It was a Carcano rifle, not a Mannlicher Carcano. "Multiple witnesses" means two people, Wesley Buell Frazier and his mother Mrs. Frazier. Neither was very sure of the dimensions of the long package, and it was Wesley Frazier, who drove Oswald to work, said he thought Oswald carried it from hand to armpit, but couldn't be sure. What are we arguing about? Oswald surely ordered the rifle to his PO box and he surely is holding in the backyard photos, which his wife said she took, and also confirmed that he owned a rifle. And he went back to the house his wife was staying at, on a Thursday night, very unusual (the only other time was for the birth of his daughter), and came back with an usual long package on Friday, which he told one person was curtain rods and other was lunch! What, a sandwich of LOOONG French bread, you think? "Multiple" witnesses testified that Oswald's room in the rooming house didn't need curtain rods, as the ones it had, were still in place at the time of his arrest, and were fine as they were, and as they had been, when Oswald rented the room. Oswald hadn't replaced them. Nor were any such thing found in the TSBD. Perhaps Oswald fled after the assassination, taking his curtain rods with him. Perhaps to sit and fondle them somewhere? You know, people like you are why we need juries with common sense to try crimes. S B H arris 20:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Lee Harvey Oswald really to blame?

Closing discussion per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – this is not a general topic discussion forum.

If you think about it, most of the evidence given in all descriptions points in a complete different direction than to Lee Harvey Oswald, for example, the decription just after the shooting by a police officer claimed that he was not out of breath, which in the time it would have taken to hide a rifle and run down four flights of stairs he would be out of breath. He had a coke in his hand, which would have taken half a minute to obtain, giving less time for Lee to complete all other events.

Even for a expert marksman from the marines, it would take much mor ethan 8 seconds to load and fire accuratly each time. Forensic evidence had proven that on bullet entered JFK from the front. Another source of evidence given to me as a fact from a friend was that a man had a picture of somebody running from the grassy knoll with a gun in his right hand, this was after the shooting and this was later proven to not be a FBI agent or Police Officer.

When Lee Harvey Oswald was moved into the Dallas County Jail he was shot by Jack Ruby, who could actually have been the killer, and he then murdered Lee Harvey Oswald incase he let out information on his role if he had connections with Oswald. The Mafia could have a role in the story too, they could have been ordered by the USSR to murder JFK so a war did not break out, or to stop the rumours of a invasion of Cuba.

In the story of Lee Harvey Oswald he was supposedly the shooter and was arrested within 90 minutes of the shooting, and within this period he had left the TSBD after drinking a coke, got the bus and then got out due to traffic, then a taxi ride to his house, due to the traffic this could have taken over 45 minutes, but he got out yet again, and walked two miles to his house, which would have took another 30-40 minutes. He was then claimed to have gone to the cinema after killing Officer Tippit, which he had no motive to do, and due to events he could not have killed Tippit at the time estimated, when he was arrested he would have been over 2 hours late if that story was true.

Many of these reasons that I have shown proves that Lee may not be the Assassin, and this could contribute to the conspiracy theory, all of this evidence drives to make me think that a conspiracy was what killed JFK, and not Lee Harvey Oswald, that is why I am trying to prove the innocence that Lee Harvey Oswald that might so rightfully deserve.

Jack, North-East of the United Kingdom

Officer Truly in the aftermath of the assassination--The idea that Oswald had a Coke in his hand is from Oliver Stone. Truly testified that Oswald's hands were empty. Also the tests that were done established a minimum time of 90 seconds from the assassination to when Truly encountered Oswald. It is likely that on the day of the assassination in all the confusion and with crowds milling around that the encounter could have taken longer than the minimum 90 seconds after the assassination. Also Oswald's path was also tested and took about a minute to complete and the subjects were never short of breath at the end.

Timing and Forensics-- Unless you're claiming the Zapruder film is doctored, it is certainly possible to get off three shots in about 8 seconds since that is precisely the timeframe the film establishes. As for the claimed forensic evidence and testimony of your friend about someone on the knoll with a gun-- if true, you guys are sitting on the holy grail of evidence establishing conspiracy. :). You should take this stuff to book publisher post haste and tell them I was your consultant.

Oswald and Ruby-- All these things could have happened but there has not been one shred of actual evidence to tie them to it. The fingerprints, weapons, and ballistics all point to Oswald.

The last paragraph simply misstates a lot of confirmed evidence and adds certain things that have never been established. An unusual amount of traffic in 1963 Dallas at 12:30 PM? Unlikely. There is a documentation showing that his ride to his boarding house could have only taken about 20-30 minutes. This is based on the bus schedules, and the testimony of witnesses including the taxi driver. If that timing is right, he'd have more than enough to kill Tippit and make it to the movie theatre.

Hope this response helps you understand why the article is written they way it is. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the guy who saw him at the window. Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the heavy boxes of books he used to make his sniper's nest? They were too high to leap over after he'd shot Kennedy. Moving them aside would have taken precious time, thus making the 90-second time frame even more incredible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt a former marine accustomed to manual labor would take that long to move a box or two out of the way, assuming he even boxed himself in (pun intended!) completely to begin with, which I doubt. Gamaliel (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oswald did not appear too hefty (although appearances can be misleading as regards physical strength). When I was at the TSBD, there were no gaps between the boxes. They were supposedly placed exactly in the same position as the sniper's nest on 22 November 1963.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In all of the pictures I googled up, there looks to be plenty of room for a grown man to move out of the nest without moving any boxes, but regardless, how hard could it be to move a box for a guy who has a job moving boxes all day? How many seconds could this possibly add to his escape itinerary? Gamaliel (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on their weight. Remember they were stacked quite high. What was his precise job at the TSBD?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

His precise job was filling orders for books, which involved taking orders for boxes of books, finding the boxes of books in the inventory stacks, and moving the boxes of books with a dolly to where they could be picked up. He's had a bunch of orders to fill on the morning of Nov. 22, but it turns out hadn't filled ANY of them. Hadn't done any of his assigned work at all. One imagines he was up on the 6th floor stroking his curtain rods and dreaming of window treatments. And of course looking out the window.

No, actually we do know one other thing he was doing: he was making a little "nest" in the corner of the floor, shielded by relatively light boxes holding binders (I forget just what, but it's known exactly what was in them, and he chose something not terribly heavy). The box in front of Oswald, used as a rifle rest for a man seated on a box to the rear, would be simply stepped over. No motion necessary. His handprint was found on one of the boxes, even though none of these boxes were for things he'd been ordered to get that morning. Nor had anybody else working on the 6th floor in the TSBD stacked those boxes in that way in the corner, that morning. How they got there if Oswald didn't stack them in that way, is a mystery. Perhaps Oswald spent the morning constructing a private place to view the motorcade the morning, instead of doing his work. A place where he could view his favorite president, and play with his rods at the same time. Ya think? S B H arris 18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

All those boxes and only one handprint! What I do think is that whether he was playing with curtain rods, stroking his rifle, or whatever, he managed to accomplish a hell of a lot from 12.30 p.m. until 1.15 p.m., not to mention killing the most powerful man on the planet. Had JFK been a European Head of State, everybody would have immediately thought: conspiracy. Like the Archduke at Sarajevo, Michael Collins in County Cork and Pope John Paul II in Rome.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The immediate assumption by the average American was that Russia or Cuba (or both) were behind it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sbharris already established that he had been at it all morning, not just since 12:30, by pointing out that he had filled none of his assigned orders. Also, how much time do you need to fire a rifle? How many handprints are the minimum number that should be left behind? Why do these arbitrary benchmarks point to conspiracy? Gamaliel (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere online there's an interesting interview with Robert Oswald, one of Lee's two older brothers, from around the 30th anniversary in November of 1993. He obviously knew his brother well, and in his mind it was totally possible for Lee to have been capable of committing the crime, and also that he would have done everything himself, as that was his nature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Or like presidents Garfield and McKinley? It doesn't take much time to pick up a coat. Oswald shows up in Hardy's Shoe Store on Jefferson out of breath about 1:36, (the down officer Tippit is less than 0.6 mile away and 15 minutes behind, and less than 0.9 miles from Oswald's rooming house: see the two Google links in the section below). Oswald has left the rooming house a little after 1 pm. After loitering in the the shoe store for cop cars to go by on Jefferson, he goes across to the Texas Theater about 1:45. The threater employee calls the cops by 1:47, due to the shoe store employee Brewer tipping off the box office staff about a suspicious person going into the theater behind them, without paying, while they're out on the sidewalk watching the police cars go by. A zillion cops, after the report goes out by radio, converge on the place and arrest the suspicious man about 5 minutes later. It's Oswald, carrying the Tippit murder weapon. Later, Oswald tells the cops he took a bus to go to this rooming house and then the theater. A lie. He later admits to a cab ride to his rooming home, after the bus is slow and he gets off early. The rest is a fast walk. Shooting a policeman takes no significant time, if it's done the way Oswald did it.

How do YOU think Oswald got from the TSBD to the Texas Theater? Do you think he had a double, closely following him, who shot Tippit, then scattered empty brass catridge cases previously obtained from (and fired by) Oswald's pistol, into the shrubbery by Tippit, behind the path of the rapidly-walking Oswald? That's quite a frame-up. Nobody could have predicted Tippit. How did the "double" know to have empty pistol cartridges from the pistol in Oswald's pocket, ready to scatter at the scene of a dead cop? And where did those curtain rods go? Oswald denied ever having said anything to anybody about curtain rods, to the cops. Or owning curtain rods. Or doing anything with curtain rods. He said his only package that morning was lunch, cheese sandwiche and apple (a very looong cheese sandwich, perhaps). He always denied owning a rifle. He couldn't exactly deny owning a pistol, but said he'd had it for 7 months (actual time is 8 months). A marine should be able to travel 1.5 miles by foot in half an hour, don't you think? Even with a couple of minutes to be stopped by a cop?

Here, by the way, is a good shot of the roll in the back of JFK's coat at the time of the first shot, Z-165 or so, 3 or 4 seconds before the second shot. The photographer is Croft. [4] S B H arris 20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting pic. So, do I interpret correctly that Connolly and Jackie are reacting to the sound of the shot, while JFK, who's still looking straight ahead, is stunned from having just been hit with a bullet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is reacting to the shot as they haven't had time to. If you want to see people reacting to the TSBD shot #1 as well as #2), see the Altgens photo taken just after shot #2. A lot of people are not looking at the president (who is clutching his throat). Connally has already turned nearly sideways (he's twisting and protecting his right side). Look at the woman just over the top of Connally's head, on the sidewalk not far from the TSBD: she's looking back and up toward the TSBD along with a lot of secret service people in both the president's chase car and the one behind. Take a close look at every person in this photo. Is anybody looking at the grassy knoll? [5] S B H arris 21:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Some are looking "in that direction", although what they're probably looking at is the scene in the limo. The others, as was pointed out decades ago, are very obviously looking directly back at the SBD, as that's where they thought the shots came from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I can make that distance in a half an hour, and I'm in terrible shape and I've never been a marine. All these impossible physical feats Oswald achieved that day can be recreated by most puny mortals quite easily. Gamaliel (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack, you say that - "Even for a expert marksman from the marines, it would take much mor ethan 8 seconds to load and fire accuratly each time." In fact it would take 2 to 4 seconds maximum per shot, given the bolt action and the pre-set sniper scope on the rifle. Also William Greer braked instead of driving off at top speed, giving Oswald even more time. There are odd aspects of the overall story, but always a basic reason. The conspiracy theories arose because very few Americans wanted to believe that one unhappy man could so easily kill their president.86.42.192.11 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the above.

the tests that were done established a minimum time of 90 seconds from the assassination to when Truly encountered Oswald.

False. In the two tests, according to Baker (3H253), “we walked the first time,” this test took 90 seconds, “and then we kind of run the second time,” this test took 75 seconds. Also, the witnesses said, Baker: “(I) ran straight to" the main entrance (3H248-249). Billy Lovelady also swore that Baker was running (6H339). Truly: “I saw a young motorcycle policeman run up to the building, up the steps to the entrance of our building. He ran right by me.” In the tests, Baker was also timed from the first shot rather than the last, giving him even more time. As for Oswald being able to reach the lunchroom in time, in the tests they had the re-enactor(s) skip some of the stuff Oswald actually did. That is, climb over or through the sniper’s nest, drop the rifle between two stacks of books and push a heavy box over the gap, and make it to the lunchroom while somehow avoiding Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles who were on staircase at that exact time.

The idea that Oswald had a Coke in his hand is from Oliver Stone.

False. FBI Agent Richard Burnett’s 1964 transcription of Baker’s statement included, “I saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a Coke.” The phrase, “drinking a Coke,” is however crossed out and initialed by Baker. Note however that after the lunchroom encounter that Oswald is seen next by Mrs. R. Reid (3H270) and Oswald WAS drinking a Coke. If Oswald got the Coke before the encounter with Baker and Truly, the Commission’s case against Oswald is in trouble. Also note that if it were not for this controversy, we would not have my favorite conspiracy theory, “the Coca-Cola theory.” Suggested by R.I. Rodale, editor of Organic Gardening and Farming, “Oswald was not responsible for his action: his brain was confused because he was a sugar drunkard.”

Don't forget the guy who saw him at the window.

We’re overdue for a discussion of what the witnesses in Dealey actually saw when looking up to the 6th floor.

Arnold Rowland saw two men, one of a dark complexion by the sniper’s nest, and a second man with a rifle at the western most window, far opposite from the sniper’s nest.

Carolyn Walther saw two men, one with a gun. One of the two had a “darker complexion.”

Ruby Henderson saw two men, one of whom she described as possibly Mexican or negro.

John Powell from the 6th floor of the Dallas County Jail Bldg. saw two men, “one of whom appeared to have darker skin,” working on a scoped rifle.

And last, and least, we have Howard Brennan who would eventually identify Oswald, though he refused to who shown Oswald in a police lineup.

Is anybody looking at the grassy knoll?

So I guess photos of where people are looking are evidence of where they thought the shots came from. In that case, several police officers, newsman Robert MacNeil and more than a dozen other people who ran immediately to the grassy knoll thought shots came from there.[6] Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

the tests that were done established a minimum time of 90 seconds from the assassination to when Truly encountered Oswald.

False. In the two tests, according to Baker (3H253), “we walked the first time,” this test took 90 seconds, “and then we kind of run the second time,” this test took 75 seconds.

You may be correct on the reconstruction, but Baker took far longer than that to get to the vestibule. From a previous discussion I engaged in - As for Baker, when he was timed at 90 seconds, he presumed he got to the front entrance at 15 seconds from the last shot. However, there is actual footage of Baker, having dismounted his motorcycle, in the process of rushing to the door. The end of the sequence - when he was still about 60 feet from the entrance - has been calibrated to 18 seconds after the final shot. It would have taken about a dozen seconds for Baker to get to the entrance, through the crowd, and into the building. So, we are talking a probable more likely time of 100+ seconds for Baker.

Oswald in the window. Oswald was identified in the window. Period. No other people were; No unknown people were seen in the TSBD. And given the movements of the employees and Truly/Baker, others WOULD have been seen.

GRassy knoll. Most people who ran there followed others who ran there. Answer this - how could Zapruder, who was standing about 10 feet from where the presumed assassin was, fail to be able to tell the shot came from his immediate right? Or, more damning, how could Bowers who was BEHIND the fence NOT see anyone firing at the limosine? Canada Jack (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And, oh yes. Those witnesses you mentioned. Brennan? Sure, dismiss a witness who actually SAW Oswald fire a shot and reported instantly to police what he saw. His description was what went out on the police radio. He claimed later that he didn't make a initial positive identification when seeing Oswald in a line-up as he feared for his family's safety - as if that is some bizarre completely non-credible excuse. He did, however, positively identify him. But let's look at each of those supposedly more credible witnesses you mention: Arnold Rowland saw two men, one of a dark complexion by the sniper’s nest, and a second man with a rifle at the western most window, far opposite from the sniper’s nest. Arnold reported seeing ONE man, holding a rifle, at port arms.(!) He repeated this on numerous occassions, and in his report to the FBI on November 24 he again repeated it, making NO mention of a second person, let alone a second person with a rifle on the same floor. A rather glaring omission, I would say. His first mention of a second gunman came months later during his WC testimony. His wife, who also testified, said that was the first time she heard anything about a second gunman - and he and she watched the same events occur. Further, he also said there were "3 women" and a "couple of boys" on the overpass, and "50, maybe more" police swarmed the railway yards. And this guy is more credible than Brennan? How could he NOT mention a second gunman when he made that initial report? Carolyn Walther saw two men, one with a gun. One of the two had a “darker complexion.” She adamantly claimed these two men were on the 4th or 5th floor, NOT the 6th floor where Brennan saw Oswald. Further, one of the men was supposedly leaning out of the window holding what looked like a machine gun. The friend she was with said Walther said NOTHING about seeing anyone with a gun after the assassination. Further, her description, excluding the gun, describes what we all see on the 5th floor, two men in a window, leaning out, right after the assassination. Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman. And Walther is more credible than Brennan? Ruby Henderson saw two men, one of whom she described as possibly Mexican or negro. Maybe Summers in "Conspiracy" sees this as being significant, but it's hard to see why. She a) wasn't sure what floor she saw these two men and b) didn't say she saw anyone with a gun. Hmmm... We already KNOW there were two men, one who was certainly "Mexican or negro" (both in fact), Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman, in the window, on the fifth floor. Why this is more credible - or even more significant - than Brennan is unclear. What am I missing here? John Powell from the 6th floor of the Dallas County Jail Bldg. saw two men, “one of whom appeared to have darker skin,” working on a scoped rifle. Powell didn't wait 30 seconds to tell authorities what he saw (like Brennan did), he waited FIFTEEN YEARS. He saw two men fooling with the scope of a rifle? What, Oswald needed a handler? Further, he claimed everyone on the same floor he was on saw the same thing. Problem is, everyone in the county jail building on both the fifth and sixth floors were interviewed at the time. NONE said they saw anything related to the assassination. And Powell, a felon, is more credible than Brennan? Canada Jack Canada Jack (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

let's look at each of those supposedly more credible witnesses you mention:

I didn’t say they were more credible. I do say Brennan is not very credible, and there are other witnesses. Consider Brennan’s POV for a minute. The window of the sniper’s nest is open from about 1 foot to 3 feet off the ground. Brennan is across the street, 6 stories below. If the sniper sticks his head out the window, that’s what Brennan can see. How can Brennan guess the man’s height, weight and age? If the sniper gets out of his crouch, all Brennan will see are (maybe) his shins and a shadow behind two panes of dusty glass with the sun shining on them. And he’s super eager to be the star witness one minute, and terrified the next?

So, we are talking a probable more likely time of 100+ seconds for Baker.

You’ve got some interesting stuff here I’ve never read. Can I know your source?

And given the movements of the employees and Truly/Baker, others WOULD have been seen.

But you’re throwing out the official reconstruction, and giving them all day to find Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Surely that’s enough time for person or persons to descend one more flight and exit. And if it’s so easy to see or hear someone in that building, why didn’t Bonnie Ray Williams see and or hear Oswald while he was eating lunch on the 6th floor from 12-12:15? Why didn’t the people on the 5th floor report hearing someone flying down the stairs at breakneck pace, when it was so quiet they could hear the bullet shells hitting the floor above?

how could Bowers who was BEHIND the fence NOT see anyone firing at the limosine?

Bowers said, “in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or smoke.” Pictures of the grassy knoll show tree foliage hanging down that could have obscured people and or guns. S.M. Holland discovered hundreds of footprints from someone pacing back and forth at the spot where he believed he had heard a shot come from and had seen smoke. Speaking of which:

Number of witnesses identifying smoke coming from the grassy knoll: 7.

Some of the witnesses on the knoll who were sure shots were coming from behind them: William Newman, Gayle Newman, Emmett Hudson, Gordon Arnold.

Number of fake secret service agents on the knoll: At least one. (Plus two more near the SBD).

Secret service agents stating that the first shot came from the right front: Powers, O’Donnell, Johns.

Secret service agents stating that the last shot came from the right front: Powers, O’Donnell, Landis.

Police officers stating that shots came from the right front: Hargis,Elkins, Weatherford. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Goggle maps

Closing discussion per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – this is not a general topic discussion forum.

Golly, you can Google the driving and walking distances from Oswald's rooming house at 1026 North Beckley Avenue, Dallas Tx 75208, to the corner where he shot Tippit, at 100 East, North Patton Avenue, Dallas Tx 75203 (0.9 miles) [7] and from there, to the Texas Theater (0.6 miles) at 231 West Jefferson Bvld, Dallas Tx 75208 [8] So the total distance is 1.5 miles. It would be closer to 1 mile, had Oswald walked directly to the Theater, but apparently, when stopped by Tippit, he was headed by the most direct route possible to Jefferson Blvd, the center business street of the area. After the shooting he finished getting to that street, then headed along Jefferson, a main drag, west toward the business district, as fast as he could. When the cops showed up he was in the Jefferson business district, and ducked into the first store he saw, which was the shoe store. S B H arris 22:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

On Google Street View, you can see that the movie playing at the Texas Theater is Oliver Stone's JFK. Hysterical! Is this an incredible coincidence....or evidence of conspiracy? Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if they arranged that? It is a good joke or a great coincidence. Though I imagine the theater probably plays that one a lot, so when the Google Photo-truck came by there was a good chance of seeing it. The other natural is the film War Is Hell (film) of course-- the one playing when Oswald ducked into the theater.

Look at all this again, it's not that hard to get Oswald to where he needs to go. If he's out of his rooming house a bit after 1 pm, and spends a couple of tense minutes at the bus stop (shouldn't have let the cab go, Oswald, you cheap-skate loser), he would have started loping south toward the center of Oak Cliff about 1:05. He probably takes North Patton to the southeast as soon as he can, knowing that's the fastest route to Jefferson Blvd. (essentially mainstreet). Oswald didn't drive, so he's walked this route into Oak Cliff before, no doubt. He's got to get 0.9 miles to 10th street. Tippet is shot perhaps 1:10 or 1:15 (the latter time being the Warren Commission estimate), so Oswald has 10 minutes.

That far in 10 minutes is 5.4 miles per hour, a good clip. Joggers weren't as common in 1963 as they are now, and Oswald in his jacket and trousers running at a good clip was probably unusual enough to be stopped. Tippit is going East on 10th street and sees Oswald running south on Patton. One mystery solved. Although if Oswald is going East on 10th the same direction Tippit is (as the cabdriver saw) it gets a bit more mysterious. Tippit's car WAS stopped East of the intersection, still on 10th.

Tippit pulls over about 105-107 East (this actually is just East of the corner of 10th E and Patton) and hails Oswald. As Tippit gets out and goes around the front of the car, Oswald shoots him (3 times in the chest and a last one in the temple). Oswald then goes south on Patton, the direction witnesses see him depart, now even faster. South is generally away from his rental room, which is north. [9] And now of course doubly panicked.

When Oswald finally hits Jefferson, just a block away, he turns west on that (main) street, toward the business center, no doubt at a dead run. How long to go 0.6 miles, or 6 blocks as you see on the map, at a dead run, perhaps 6 mph? As little as six minutes, though it probably takes longer, as he can't go at dead run on Jefferson without being noticed. But if he runs the the first 2 blocks, then slows down, it still takes 10 minutes to the shoe store. By that time sirens have started. And it's only about 1:30 pm or even sooner, perhaps 1:25. The salesman Brewer sees him come in and thinks it's later, but time tends to crawl when sirens are going. Oswald needs time to spend "an unusual time" examining shoes he never intends to buy. If he doesn't leave until 12:40 he may have 15 minutes in the store, looking at that shoe, with sirens going, his hair all wild, and breathing hard, at first. By the time he leaves, Brewer can't help but look to see where he goes, and when he slips into the theater without paying, Brewer can't help himself. He tells the box office lady (who by now is out of the box office, gawking on the sidewalk), she calls the cops, and that's it. It's all up for Oswald, and he's immobilized inside the theater, 10 minutes from then. S B H arris 23:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The theatre's website does not appear to be showing that film anymore,[10] but one of their upcoming attractions is Dr. Strangelove, which has a small connection, in that they overdubbed Slim Pickens' line about "a pretty good weekend in Dallas" to "a pretty good weekend in Vegas". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember that line. I wonder it they ever gave nuke bomber crew gold coins to use in trade with the (presumably radioactive) and de-civilized locals. S B H arris 01:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Honking patrol car

Re: "Mrs. Roberts testified that while Oswald was in his room, she witnessed a Dallas police car slowly pull up in front of the house, sound its horn twice, and then move slowly away."

There is no evidence that the honking patrol car is relevant to an article about LHO. We do not include assertions of other witnesses about rifles in Grassy Knoll, nor that someone that resembles LHO slightly appears outside TSBD. It is relevant to conspiracy theory article. Relevance to LHO is the criterion for inclusion in this article, and no such relevance has been presented. --JimWae (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of its relevance either. It certainly does speak to a possible conspiracy theory and might be better there unless someone establishes its relevance here. Canada Jack (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fred Korth, Sec of Navy (1962-1963)

A question -

What do you know about Fred Korth and this connection to LHO: Did Korth act as legal counsel or lawyer for LHO's step-father in the 1947 divorce from Oswald's mother? Any clues? Ol'Campy (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not the place to argue for conspiracy

This article is a biography of Oswald. As such, it does include mention that some people believe he was part of a conspiracy. This article is not the place to present every (nor even a few) arguments that he was part of a conspiracy. This applies also to what Jim Garrison conjectured regarding his failed case against Shaw. --JimWae (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

CIA Career

Can this be verified ? "Back in 2004 a government document was de-classified that proves Lee Harvey Oswald was trained by the CIA." http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/jv2bz/declassified_document_admits_lee_harvey_oswald/ http://www.federaljack.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/De-Classified-Document-Admits-Oswald-Was-CIA.jpg

I wasn't able to find any mention of this on wikipedia, please correct me if this has been proven fraudulent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.117.162 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Howard Brennan THE PLAZA "WITNESS"

Collapse block-evading sock

Placing Oswald on the sixth floor with the rifle in his hands was tantamount to the Commission's proving that he fired the shots at the motorcade in Dealey Plaza. In order to do this, the Warren Report banked heavily on the testimony of a single witness, Howard Leslie Brennan. Brennan was standing at the corner of Houston and Elm facing the Texas Book Depository in Dealey Plaza when JFK was assassinated.

Brennan was the only witness to identy Lee Harvey Oswald as the man firing from the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

The Report stressed that Brennan was in an "excellent position" to observe anyone in the window and was an "accurate observer". It was Brennan's description, the Report said, that went out over the police radio minutes after the assassination.

The Commission had problems trying to establish the fact that Brennan was, in fact, the source of the description of the shooter. Articles began appearing pointing out contradictions in Brennan's testimony as it appeared in the Report. Two weeks after the Report was made public, Commission Head Counsel J. Lee Rankin wrote Hoover twice, on December 2 and again on the 18th, requesting a complete chain "from Brennan to the police dept.". Although they tried, the FBI failed to do so.

BRENNAN'S DESCRIPTION

He described seeing a white man "in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, possibly 5-foot 10, 160 to 170 pounds, wearing light colored clothes, more of a khaki color."

But that description does not match the clothes that Oswald was wearing that day.

And since there's no evidence that Oswald changed his clothes after the shooting, the man Brennan saw could not have been Oswald.

No matter how much the Warren Report massaged the facts, it could not establish Brennan's credibility.

BIZARRE CLAIMS

Brennan testified that he thought the first shot was a firecracker and although he never heard a second shot, after the third shot he looked up and saw that the gunman "stepped down out of sight". But the gunman couldn't have "stepped down" because the windowsill was only 12 inches up from the floor.

Brennan said that the gunman was standing and he could see the man "from the belt up."

But Commission Exhibit 1311 indicates that that was an impossibility.

A man Oswald's height is shown next to the window:

The FBI photograph inspires no more confidence in the Commission's claim that Oswald was either "kneeling or sitting". Had that been the case, Brennan could not have estimated the height and weight of the gunman from six stories down.

In addition, it is doubtful that Brennan could have identified someone through the filthy windows of the sixth floor:

At no time during his viewing of the police lineup did Brennan positively identify Oswald as the man he saw in the window firing. And this was AFTER he had seen Oswald on television.

I'm still wondering how Brennan could have not heard a second shot and believe that the next shot was a third shot. If he didn't hear a second shot, shouldn't the next shot he hear BE the second shot ?

A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION ?

At the lineup, Brennan selected Oswald as the person who most closely RESEMBLED the man he had seen in the window with the rifle, but he failed to make a positive identification.

Mr. BRENNAN. I told Mr. Sorrels and Captain Fritz at that time that Oswald--or the man in the lineup that I identified looking more like a closest resemblance to the man in the window than anyone in the lineup. ( 3 H 147 )

Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the time of the lineup?

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I TOLD THEM THAT I COULD NOT MAKE A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION. ( 3 H 148 )

What makes Brennan's refusal to initially identify Oswald as the shooter even more compelling is that he saw Oswald on TV BEFORE he went down to view the police lineup:

Mr. BELIN. In the meantime, had you seen any pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald on television or in the newspapers?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, on television.

Mr. BELIN. About when was that, do you believe?

Mr. BRENNAN. I believe I reached home quarter to three or something of that, 15 minutes either way, and I saw his picture twice on television before I went down to the police station for the lineup.

Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the other?

Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know. ( 3 H 147-148 )

After Oswald was dead, a federal agent spoke with him. It was not Brennan but a "Secret Service man from Houston" who first suggested "security reasons" as an excuse to the reluctant witness: "You said you couldn't make a positive identification. Did you do that for security reasons personally or couldn't you?" is how Brennan quoted the agent. ( 3 H 148 )

Mr. BELIN. did you ever LATER tell any officer or investigating person anything different?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. When did that happen?

Mr. BRENNAN. I believe SOME DAYS LATER----I don't recall exactly--and I believe the Secret Service man identified hisself as being Williams, I believe, from Houston. I won't swear to that-whether his name was Williams or not.

Then Brennan tells the circumstances under which he came to identify Oswald:

Mr. BELIN. Well, what happened in between to change your mind that you later decided to come forth and tell them you could identify him?

Mr. BRENNAN. AFTER OSWALD WAS KILLED, I was relieved quite a bit that as far as pressure on myself of somebody not wanting me to identify anybody, there was no longer that immediate danger.

When he appeared before the Warren Commission, Brennan stated that he could have made the identification at the lineup. ( 3 H 148 )

FEARED FOR HIS LIFE ?

After Brennan came forward he told police he could have made a positive identification at the lineup but was afraid for the safety of himself and his family.

Brennan's explanation that he failed to identify Oswald out of fear that he was the only eyewitness and, as such, might be silenced or killed. Posner cites the fact that Brennan considered moving his family and that the FBI posted guards at his house for three weeks.

But this picture of a scared and reluctant witness has some cracks in it, however: According to Dallas Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels, Brennan knew that he was not the only eyewitness. When Sorrels spoke with Brennan at the TSBD about half an hour after the assassination, Brennan himself pointed out young Amos Euins as another one who had seen the gunman.

Mr. STERN. How did you happen to talk to Mr. Brennan?

Mr. SORRELS. I asked--I don't know who, someone there "Is there anyone here that saw anything?" And someone said, "That man over there."He was out in front of the building and I went right to him.

Mr. STERN. Did Mr. Brennan tell you anything else?

Mr. SORRELS. I asked him whether or not he thought he could identify the person that he saw, and he, of course, gave me a description of him, said that he appeared to be a slender man, he had on what appeared to be a light jacket or shirt or something to that effect, and that he thought he could identify him--said he was slender build. Because I was definitely interested in someone that had seen something that could give us some definite information. And I also asked if he had seen anybody else, and he pointed to a young colored boy there, by the name of Euins.

( 7 H 349 )

One wonders why if he feared for his safety he didn't take steps to avoid public exposure.

Brennan asked David Belin during his testimony if the Commission had the television coverage of his interview with Secret Service agents at the crime scene. Brennan's instant celebrity, his name and face, had been broadcast all over Dallas BEFORE HE HAD EVEN SEEN THE LINEUP.

In August, 1964, before the release of the Warren Report, Brennan spoke on camera with CBS News, for their nationwide broadcast, "CBS News Extra: November 22, 1963 and the Warren Report," aired on September 27, 1964. Interviews were done, according to narrator Walter Cronkite, a month before the telecast and the release of the Warren Report.

( In the CBS program, Brennan blatantly contradicted his sworn Warren Commission testimony when, having blown his cover, he told the nation that "The President's head just exploded."

Brennan also posed for a photograph which appeared in the October 2, 1964 issue of Life magazine.

If Brennan was taking steps to avoid public exposure, they were certainly extraordinary steps.

In both his Sheriff's Department statement and his comments to Sorrels, Brennan indicated a willingness to identify the man in the window "if I ever saw him again."

The most reasonable explanation for Brennan's failure to ever make a positive identification of the man is that he never saw him again--at the lineup or elsewhere.

Brennan had told the Commission that he had been sitting on the wall facing Elm St. as depicted in Commission Exhibits 477 and 478:

Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22? Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir. Representative FORD. At about 12 Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination. Representative FORD. In both pictures, that is a true-- Mr. BRENNAN. True location. Representative FORD. True location of where you were sitting November 22d? Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.

( 3 H 142 )

But Commission Exhibit 479, a frame from the Zapruder film, shows Brennan sitting on the wall facing HOUSTON ST. and having to twist his body to his left to view the motorcade traveling down Elm:

SUPERB EYESIGHT ?

On his website, Warren Commission supporter Prof. Ken Rahn of URI describes Brennan as a "steamfitter with superb eyesight". Brennan was farsighted, wore glasses for reading and had both eyes sandblasted in January 1964. In fact, Brennan's eyesight was so bad at the time of the assassination, he was unsure of how many people were in the lineup and estimated "seven, more or less one".

( 3 H 147 )

The Oswald lineups never consisted of more than 4 people.

When Brennan was asked if all of the men in the lineup were white, he "couldn't remember".

( ibid. )

Brennan testified that at the lineup, he told Fritz and Sorrels that Oswald was the one with the "closest resemblance" to the man in the window. ( ibid. )

But Fritz wasn't at that lineup and didn't even know that there had been a lineup until Sorrels called him and told him. ( 4 H 237 )

Brennan was able to identify "two negroes" who had been in the window one floor BELOW the shooter, but was "unable to remember" if he had heard them admit they were there.

( 3 H 146 )

Howard Brennan saw more people in the lineup than were actually there. He saw Fritz at the lineup when Fritz WASN'T there. He saw a gunman standing in the window firing when it was an impossibility.

There's a reason why Howard Brennan wouldn't pick Oswald out of the lineup.

His eyesight was so bad, he couldn't honestly pick anyone out of the lineup.

SO WHICH LINEUP DID HE VIEW ?

Brennan testified that he was picked up by the Secret Service "at 6 o'clock promptly" ( 6pm on November 22nd ) . ( 3 H 160 )

That would have put him at the 6:30 lineup with Tippit witnesses Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard and bus driver Cecil McWatters.

But Callaway described only himself, Guinyard and McWatters at the lineup. ( 3 H 355 )

Fritz told the Commission that Brennan was at the same lineup as the Davis "sisters" ( 4 H 237 ) , which did not occur until 7:55 pm.

So did Brennan sit in the police station for almost two hours waiting for the 7:55 lineup ?

Barbara Davis said that the only ones who were at the lineup she saw were herself, her husband, her sister-in-law and police officers in suits. ( 3 H 346 )

Her account is verified by her sister-in-law, Virginia ( 6 H 461 )

Brennan is not described in any account of any witness who viewed any police lineup as having been at their lineup.

And not one Dallas Police officer ever gave testimony claiming to have been present at or making reference to a lineup viewed by Brennan.

In fact, CE 2003, pg 293 is a list of ALL witnesses who viewed Oswald in a police lineup.

Howard Brennan's name is not among them.

No documentation exists that tells when Howard Brennan viewed a lineup, what officials were present during that lineup, the names and descriptions of the persons who participated in the lineup with Oswald--no information whatsoever.

NOTABLE NOTES

At the lineup, Brennan selected Oswald as the person who most closely resembled the man he had seen in the window with the rifle, but he failed to make a positive identification.

After an "agent" spoke with him a few weeks later, Brennan seemed to revert to being unable to positively identify Oswald.

The relationship of the windowsill to the floor made it impossible for the shooter to be standing while firing, as Brennan claimed. If the shooter was sitting or kneeling, it would have been impossible for Brennan to estimate his height and weight..

Brennan's description of the clothing worn by the man in the window was inconsistent with the outfit Oswald was wearing that day.

His failure to make a positive identification of Oswald, as well as the issue of the gunman's clothing, make it impossible to fairly cite Brennan as proof that Lee Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor, a fact which even the Warren Commission recognized.

The Warren Commission dealt with the dilemma of Brennan's uncertainty in this manner:

"The Commission ... does not base its conclusions concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan's subsequent certain identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he saw fire the rifle...

According to Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels, Brennan knew that he was not the only eyewitness. When Sorrels spoke with Brennan at the TSBD about half an hour after the assassination, Brennan himself pointed out young Amos Euins as one who had seen the gunman.

The most reasonable explanation for Brennan's failure to ever make a positive identification of the man is that he never saw him again--at the lineup or elsewhere. Brennan's eyesight was so bad at the time he viewed the lineup, he told the Commission the lineup consisted of "seven, more or less one". There were never more than 4 in any lineup.

It was not Brennan but a "Secret Service man from Houston" who first suggested "security reasons" as an excuse to the reluctant witness: "You said you couldn't make a positive identification. Did you do that for security reasons personally or couldn't you?" is how Brennan quoted the agent.

In August, 1964, before the release of the Warren Report, Brennan spoke on camera with CBS News, for their nationwide broadcast, "CBS News Extra: November 22, 1963 and the Warren Report," aired on September 27, 1964. Interviews were done, according to narrator Walter Cronkite, a month before the telecast and the release of the Warren Report.

Brennan also posed for a photograph which appeared in the October 2, 1964 issue of Life magazine. If Brennan was taking steps to avoid public exposure, they were certainly extraordinary steps. ( In the CBS program, Brennan blatantly contradicted his sworn Warren Commission testimony when he told the nation that "The President's head just exploded." )

Brennan's eyesight was so poor that he could not determine how many people were in the lineup.

Brennan's eyesight was so poor that he "couldn't remember" if all of the men in the lineup were white.

Brennan's eyesight was so poor that he saw Capt. Fritz at the lineup when Fritz wasn't there.

No Dallas Police officer ever made a reference in testimony to a lineup viewed by Brennan.

Brennan's name does not appear on any witness list as having viewed one of the Oswald lineups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.9.12 (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of silliness here. Nitpicking at witness testimony doesn't negate the fact that many saw and heard shots fired from the window. Even if we throw out his description, we have other proof he was indeed in the sniper's nest as his hand prints were configured as if one was preparing to shoot down Elm Street. This aside from the bullet and rifle evidence. Further, every person in the building was accounted for save for OSwald, no unknown person was seen by the employees before or after the assassination. For the person who shot from there - and we know SOMEONE shot from there - NOT to be Oswald, we'd have to have all those prints planted, Oswald would have had NOT to do what just about every other employee do - watch the motorcade with workmates - and we'd need this phantom sniper to magically disappear into the ether. Further, alone amongst employees, Oswald fled the building. Odd reaction from someone totally innocent who at the least would want to establish his innocence if not what he saw. If Brennan was the only person who could have placed Oswald there, there might be a problem. But that's not what we have here. Canada Jack (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We probably need CE 1301 and maybe CE 1302 (photos of the sniper nest) in this article. [11]. We know Oswald did no work and didn't fill any of his book orders on the morning of the assassination, so what the hell WAS he doing all morning? Well, let's think about it. He did leave handprints all over the boxes of books in the corner of the 6th floor, near the window the empty brass was found in front of, and that various witness placed the shots coming from. So, maybe somebody else stole Oswald's old Carcano rifle, complete with prints, and left it up there. AND maybe somebody put empty brass from that rifle up there, too. And yes, you can deform an empty brass ammo case-end just by stepping on it (something somebody seems not to have considered). But the important thing is that Oswald's hand prints in the corner of the 6th floor means that HE was up there at the sniper window, and he was up there THAT morning, because those boxes had been moved into position that morning. So Oswald helped Mr. Sniper. Who obviously used Oswald's Carcano from that 6th floor window, since the fragments recovered from the JFK limo did come from that Carcano, and the trajectory of the bullet that traveled though JFK and Connally does project back up to that corner of the building, near the 6th floor. Not the grassy knoll.

And yes, the Warren Commission did wonder if the cartons of books used to construct the barrier at this 6th floor window, were boxes of books that Oswald might have handled in this normal work. Answer: They were not. So. Not ONLY did Oswald fail to do his normal order-filling, but even if he HAD done his normal work, he had no reason to be working with any of the books at the corner of the 6th floor. He had no reason for he himself to be where his handprints placed him. So there's no legitimate reason to have his palm prints on those boxes. If he was sitting eating his lunch on the second floor during the assassination, not long before THAT, his palm prints on boxes place him up in the corner of the 6th floor, doing something-or-other which tended to spread evidence making him (Oswald) look guilty. Wups. He brought his decorative curtain rods that morning, and we suppose he then left with them, just as the building was sealed off. Stand aside, Dan Rather-- it's Lee Oswald coming through, with his window-treatment. He'd been up in the corner of the 6th floor just before that, possibly walking right by his own hidden rifle and empty shells. Or perhaps he had actually scattered the shells, not recognizing empty 6.5x52 mm brass, as the type fired by his own weapon. If he was a patsy, therefore, he may possibly just be the stupidest patsy in the history of the universe. S B H arris 00:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Spent Shells

Collapse block-evading sock

The Warren Commission based its conclusion that three shots had been fired on the existence of the three shells found in the TSBD. (Commission Exhibits 543, 544 and 545) It reported that two of the cartridge cases had marks "produced by the chamber of Oswald's rifle", one which contained marks produced by the Carcano's magazine follower and the other had markings from the bolt of the Depository rifle. Two cases had markings indicating that they had been loaded into a rifle at least twice. The third had been loaded into a rifle at least three times.

When the rifle was found, an unfired round was in the chamber, ejected when Capt. Fritz operated the bolt. This is an important detail when we examine evidence linking the rifle shells to the rifle.

CE 543 - The Dented Shell

This cartridge (Commission Exhibit 543) had a dent on its lip which would have made it impossible for it to have contained a bullet prior to its being fired. Therefore, either one of two possibilities existed: either the shell received the dent prior to the shooting and was not connected to it (implying that it was planted at the scene -- evidence of a conspiracy) or the shell was in fact evidence and was dented somehow after its bullet had been spent. Faced with a mandate to dispel rumors of a conspiracy, the Commission at first assumed that this cartridge received its dent upon being ejected from the rifle and falling onto the floor. However, solid brass cartridges don't dent when they hit the floor, as any hunter will tell you. The FBI reported to the Commission that the dent was made during the firing sequence, WHILE THE BOLT WAS PULLED BACKWARD, after the shot had been fired. This seemed reasonable enough to the Commission to explain the existence of the dented lip, but on closer examination, the evidence does not support this conclusion.

The Commission, for its part, published a photo of the exhibit from the side with the dented lip away from the camera.

Problems with the bolt markings

First of all, this cartridge did not have the characteristic marking on its side (an indentation) which the Carcano's bolt produced on EVERY cartridge loaded into the firing chamber ( Hoover memo to Rankin, 2 June 1964; FBI Ballistics Report, 25 Dec.1964 ) , indicating that it had NEVER been inside the rifle's firing chamber, let alone been fired from it. Since it hadn't been in the firing chamber of the Depository rifle, this cartridge was never fired from it, which means that it could NOT have had the markings of the firing pin of the rifle as well. I say this because it is impossible for this shell to have the markings of the firing pin of the rifle without having been in the firing chamber.

CE 543 contained three sets of markings on the base which were NOT produced by the Depository rifle. And its extractor and ejector marks could not be determined to have been caused by the Depository rifle.

The only sensible conclusion, based on the absence of the bolt and firing pin markings, is that this shell had nothing to do with the assassination of John F. Kennedy and was planted at the scene of the crime. And this may be the reason that the Dallas Police hesitated in sending this shell to the FBI for examination. Secondly, at the primer, where the firing pin strikes the case, CE 543 contained a more concave indentation than the other two, indicating that it had been empty when "fired" from that other rifle. Only empty shells exhibit this type of characteristic. The FBI reproduced this effect ( CE 557 --- 557A below ) when it loaded an empty shell into the Depository rifle. ( American Opinion 19, Feb 1976, pg. 5-9) It contained the same deep impression on the primer that CE 543 contained. CE 557 also contained the "dent" in the lip, caused by slamming an empty shell forward into the firing chamber, proof that CE 543 contained no bullet when it was loaded and "fired from a rifle other than the Depository rifle.

As it had with CE 543, the Commission-published photo of CE 557 is from the side with the dented lip away from the camera. ( 17 H 249 )

Thirdly, CE 543 contained markings caused by the magazine follower of the Depository weapon. When the Depository Carcano was tested by the FBI, it was found that the magazine follower marked only the last cartridge in the clip. The last cartridge in the clip of the Depository rifle when found on November 22nd was an unfired round ( CE 141 ).

What this all means is that CE 543 was a cartridge which was loaded into another rifle three times and at some point was "fired". The comparison tests conducted by the FBI supported the conclusion that CE 543 was never in the firing chamber of the Depository rifle and as a result of the lack of an indentation which the bolt was known to have caused on EVERY shell fired using it, this shell was not ejected through the bolt action and therefore this shell was never fired from the Depository rifle on November 22nd or at any other time.

As I previously mentioned, this cartridge remained in the possession of the Dallas Police until November 28th, five days after the other two shells had been turned over to the FBI for examination. It should be noted that a behind-the-scenes struggle for possession of the evidence existed between the DPD and the FBI. Capt. Fritz refused to release it, and Chief Curry backed him up. Only after Lyndon Johnson called Fritz and ordered him to do so ("You have your man, the investigation is over") did Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz finally agree to release it. Despite this agreement, the DPD did not give the FBI all of its evidence on November 23rd, withholding CE 543 and three of the four bullets removed from the body of Officer Tippit.

One would have to question the motive of the Dallas Police for withholding evidence from the FBI in two murders cases which were officially closed.

Nevertheless, this struggle for the possession of the evidence likewise may have been a reason for not turning in CE 543 on November 23rd.

Of the three cases found in the TSBD, only one, CE 544, had markings produced by the bolt of the Depository rifle. In addition, CE 544 had the markings of the firing chamber. But its extractor and ejector marks, like those of the dented shell, could not be identified as having been caused by the Depository rifle.

Likewise, CE 545 did show evidence of being in the firing chamber of the Depository rifle, but did not have the markings of the bolt of Oswald's rifle nor did it have the marking of the firing pin, strong evidence that this shell had not been fired from the Depository rifle. The absence of markings from the bolt indicate that the shell was never ejected and the absence of the marking of the firing pin indicated that it had not been fired from the Depository rifle. It did have the marking of the magazine follower, which marked only the last shell in the clip.

From the Hoover report we can see that all three of the shells had been loaded into "a weapon" multiple times.

The dented shell, CE 543, had been "loaded into and extracted from a weapon at least three times". Its extractor and ejector marks could not be identified as having come from the Depository rifle. It contained markings on its base that the Depository rifle did not make. At the same time, it lacked markings made by the Depository rifle's bolt, firing chamber and firing pin. And it had the marking of the magazine follower, which marked only the last shell in the clip, which it was not on November 22, 1963.

CE 544 had been "loaded into and extracted from a weapon at least twice". It did have markings made by the bolt and firing chamber of the Depository rifle, but like the other shells, its extractor and ejector markings could not be identified with the alleged murder weapon. In addition, the FBI could not determine if the bolt and chamber marks were made at the same time.

Like CE 544, CE 545 had been "loaded into and extracted from a weapon at least twice". Like the other shells, its extractor and ejector markings could not be identified with the alleged murder weapon. And like CE 544, it had the markings of the chamber of the Depository rifle on it. And like CE 543, it also had the marking of the magazine follower, which marked only the last shell in the clip, which it was not on November 22, 1963. And as they could not determine if the bolt and chamber marks were made at the same time on CE 544, the FBI could not determine if the chamber marks and the magazine follower marks were done at the same time on CE 545. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.9.12 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

These claims are a bit problematic. First, the dented cartridge case. The HSCA found that the cartridge was likely dented while being ejected. 1 HSCA 454; 7 HSCA 371. The HSCA firearms panel found that 1 in 4 cartridges received similar dents in the mouth of the case. They found that the denting occurred when the bolt action was operated forcefully, ie., when rapidly firing.

CE 543, never in the firing chamber of the Carcano, never fired by the Carcano. Robert Frazier and Joseph Nichol both testified to the WC that ALL THREE of the shells (CE 543, CE 544, CE 545) had the characteristic bolt face and firing pin impressions of Oswald's Carcano on the head of the cartridge cases to the exclusion of all other weapons on the planet, and had been fired from said rifle. 3 H 415–416, 423–424, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 3 H 505, WCT Joseph D. Nicol; CE 559,

561–565, 17 H 250, 252–254. In 1979, the HSCA panel reached the identical conclusion. 7 HSCA 368.

Since the three shells were proven to have been fired from the rifle (not just loaded into the rifle), it would seem your argument is moot.

One would have to question the motive of the Dallas Police for withholding evidence from the FBI in two murders cases which were officially closed. Sounds like a turf war to me. Dallas wanted to do their own tests, they handed over two shells, Fritz held on to CE 543 until November 29 at which point he reluctantly handed it over.

Of the three cases found in the TSBD, only one, CE 544, had markings produced by the bolt of the Depository rifle. In addition, CE 544 had the markings of the firing chamber. But its extractor and ejector marks, like those of the dented shell, could not be identified as having been caused by the Depository rifle. This is simply false. ALL THREE shells had the characteristic bolt markings. Where are you getting this information? If they all had the bolt markings, they were fired by the rifle. Period.

The dented shell, CE 543, had been "loaded into and extracted from a weapon at least three times". Its extractor and ejector marks could not be identified as having come from the Depository rifle. It contained markings on its base that the Depository rifle did not make. At the same time, it lacked markings made by the Depository rifle's bolt, firing chamber and firing pin. And it had the marking of the magazine follower, which marked only the last shell in the clip, which it was not on November 22, 1963. ???? Completely false. CE 543 indeed DID have the characteristic marks. See above. Further, if it had the magazine follower mark, that could simply mean it was the last shell in one of the previous times it was loaded.

CE 544 had been "loaded into and extracted from a weapon at least twice". It did have markings made by the bolt and firing chamber of the Depository rifle, but like the other shells, its extractor and ejector markings could not be identified with the alleged murder weapon. In addition, the FBI could not determine if the bolt and chamber marks were made at the same time. Well then how could it have the bolt marking and not have been fired by the same rifle? This is rather silly.

Like CE 544, CE 545 had been "loaded into and extracted from a weapon at least twice". Like the other shells, its extractor and ejector markings could not be identified with the alleged murder weapon. And like CE 544, it had the markings of the chamber of the Depository rifle on it. And like CE 543, it also had the marking of the magazine follower, which marked only the last shell in the clip, which it was not on November 22, 1963. And as they could not determine if the bolt and chamber marks were made at the same time on CE 544, the FBI could not determine if the chamber marks and the magazine follower marks were done at the same time on CE 545. This is all rather silly. CE 545 had the bolt marking, therefore it was fired by Oswald's rifle. Period. If it had the magazine follower mark, then that means it was the last cartridge in the magazine one of the previous times it was loaded.

The only thing which we CAN say from this rather strange assessment is we can't prove via the markings whether the three spent shells were indeed fired from that window at the limousine at the time of the assassination. What we CAN say is that a) the shells were fired by Oswald's rifle and no other rifle on the planet and b) the intact bullet and the fragments with sufficient markings were fired by Oswald's rifle and no other rifle on the planet. Canada Jack (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Police Searches....Were They Valid and What Did They Prove ?

Collapse discussion of original research by blocked sock account

Police usually need a search warrant in order to search a house.

As a rule of thumb, the more private an area is to an individual, the more difficult it is for the police to search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A home obviously has the greatest expectation of privacy and is clearly more private than an office or a car or any other place the police may search for drugs, weapons, or even computers. Police can only search without a warrant in very limited circumstances.

If the police search a home improperly, then the evidence will not be admissible during a trial. This can mean cases ranging from possession of drugs all the way up to murder cases, can be severely crippled or even thrown out because of an invalid entry by police into a home.

Police can use an exception called “exigent circumstances” to do warrant-less entries into the home. Where police have probable cause to believe an offense has been committed and there are “exigent circumstances” they can enter a house without a warrant. Examples include if they are in “hot pursuit” of a suspect, there is clearly danger to someone inside, or if the officer is in danger. Another exigent circumstance is if the officer believes evidence is being destroyed inside. For an officer to claim he fears that there is destruction of evidence, he needs to have strong probable cause of a serious offense.

There were no "exigent circumstances" exempting the police from obtaining search warrants in any of the searches they conducted.

The Dallas Police made two trips to the Paine residence to search it. One without a warrant on the day of the assassination and one with a warrant the following day. The police also conducted a search of Oswald's room at the boarding house at 1026 North Beckley on the day of the assassination.

We'll look at all three searches, beginning with the first search of the Paine residence conducted on the day of the assassination, Friday, November 22, 1963, the search for which they had no warrant.

The Search of the Paine Property on November 22, 1963

The main way police search houses without warrants, however, is because the homeowner (or another resident) consents to the search. The consent must be voluntary and cannot be coerced. Displays of force or threats to get search warrants can call the search into question. A person does not have to consent to a voluntary search of a home.

Police use a technique called a “knock and talk” which courts have consistently upheld as being valid. This is where an officer merely knocks on the door and asks to search. Where police attempt to manipulate or coerce consent is where there have been legal problems with the searches.

Consent is more than just another search warrant exception; it is also a waiver of the necessity of police to have probable cause for the search.

The warrant requirement was designed primarily to interpose a neutral magistrate’s judgment between the law enforcement officer zealously ferreting out crime and the privacy and personal security of individual citizens.

Ruth Paine described what happened when police came to her door on the day of the assassination:

JENNER. The police arrived and what occurred.

Mrs. PAINE. I went to the door. They announced themselves as from both the sheriff's office and the Dallas Police Office, showed me at least one package or two. I was very surprised.

Mr. JENNER. Did you say anything?

Mrs. PAINE. I said nothing. I think I just dropped my jaw. And the man in front said by way of explanation "We have Lee Oswald in custody. He is charged with shooting an officer." This is the first I had any idea that Lee might be in trouble with the police or in any way involved in the day's events. I asked them to come in. They said they wanted to search the house. I asked if they had a warrant. They said they didn't. They said they could get the sheriff out here right away with one if I insisted. And I said no, that was all right, they could be my guests. They then did search the house.

Mr. JENNER. How many police officers were there?

Mrs. PAINE. There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house.

( 3 H 78-79 )

The six officers present during the Paine search on Friday were Dallas Police detectives Guy F. Rose, John P. Adamcik and Richard S. Stovall and County Sheriff Detectives Harry Weatherford, E.W. ( Buddy ) Walthers, and J.L. Oxford.

( 7 H 229 )

Rose, Adamcik, Stovall and Walthers gave testimony to the Warren Commission. Weatherford and Oxford were never called to testify.

Ruth Paine's consent to a search would have been considered "coerced consent" because her consent was given after the officer threatened to obtain a warrant and she yielded to this factor rather than make her own determination to insist on seeing a warrant before any search commenced.

The reason why they went there without a search warrant was because in order to obtain a search warrant, the requestor has to explain to the court SPECIFICALLY what it is he is looking for. Since they didn't know what they were looking for, they couldn't apply for a search warrant.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Mr. BELIN. All right, did you have a search warrant when you went out there? Mr. ADAMCIK. No, sir; we did not. Mr. BELIN. Any particular reason why you didn't? Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, at the time, we didn't know what we would find. We didn't have any idea what this address meant to us, and we were mainly going over to see who was there.

( 7 H 204 )

"We were just--not actually knowing what we were looking for, just searching.." Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers ( 7 H 548 )

Looking at her testimony, Mrs. Paine was told by police that Oswald was in custody and being charged with shooting a police officer. This was a false statement used to explain the reason for the search. At the time of the search, Oswald was not charged with killing Tippit. False statements as to the purpose of the search can render a consent invalid.

Of course, the police had their own version of how they entered the premises, testifying that Mrs. Paine said she was "expecting them" to show up at her door and that she had "no objection whatsoever" to the search. ( 7 H 548 )

In the Rose and Walthers version, there is no mention of Mrs. Paine's request to see a search warrant.

In his Warren Commission testimony, Sheriff Deputy "Buddy" Walthers slipped and said that "it didn't appear that her or Mrs. Oswald, or Marina, ....it didn't appear that they knew that Oswald had been arrested at all--the way they talked." ( ibid. )

Commission counsel asked Walthers how it could be that on the one hand Mrs. Paine said that she "expected them" and on the other hand did not know that Oswald had been arrested ?

Mr. WALTHERS. ... when we went to the door, what turned out to be Mrs. Paine just as soon as we stepped on the porch, she said, "Come on in, we've been expecting you, and we didn't have any trouble at all--we just went right on in and stared asking her--at that time it didn't appear that her or Mrs. Oswald, or Marina, who came up carrying one of the babies in the living room--it didn't appear that they knew that Oswald had been arrested at all--the way they talked. Mr. LIEBELER. How do you account for the fact that Mrs. Paine said, "Come on in, we've been expecting you?" Mr. WALTHERS. I don't know--to this day, I don't know. Mr. LIEBELER. Are you sure that's what she said? Mr. WALTHERS. I know that's what she said. Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Paine said that? Mr. WALTHERS. Yes, sir; she said, "Come on in, we have been expecting you."

( ibid.)

The Dallas Police Report on the matter had Mrs. Paine using even more bizarre terms, allegedly telling police " Yes, I know that you need to save all the time you can, and it is certainly all right with me." Why Mrs. Paine would be concerned with how the Dallas Police spent their time, in light of the fact that the alleged perpetrator was already in police custody, is unclear.

But as I've already shown, Mrs. Paine testified differently:

I said nothing. I think I just dropped my jaw. And the man in front said by way of explanation "We have Lee Oswald in custody. He is charged with shooting an officer." This is the first I had any idea that Lee might be in trouble with the police or in any way involved in the day's events.

( 3 H 78-79 )

It would seem to come down to the word of Ruth Paine versus that of two Dallas detectives and a Deputy Sheriff.

But one of those Dallas detectives backed up Mrs. Paine's version at least partially:

Mr. STOVALL. At that time we told her that we wanted to search the house. We explained to her that we did not have a search warrant but if she wanted us to get one we would, and she said, "That won't be necessary"--for us to come right on in, so we went on in the house and started to search out the house...

( 7 H 188 )

The evidence indicates that the authorities gained access to the Paine residence by making a false statement that Oswald was being charged with the murder of Tippit three or four hours before the charges were actually formally filed and by assuring Mrs. Paine that her insistence on their having a search warrant was fruitless. By lying and coercion, the authorities were able to gain access to the property and conduct a search without showing probable cause.

The Search of the Home

Michael Paine was at work when the assassination occurred. He was separated from his wife at the time and showed up at the house after the police had started searching:

Mr. LIEBELER. What time did you arrive at your home in Irving?

Mr. PAINE. I would guess about 3 or 3:30, somewhere in that neighborhood.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was there when you arrived?

Mr. PAINE. The police, the Dallas police mostly were there.

They did remove some things from the Paine home on the day of the assassination.

Mr. LIEBELER. What else happened?

Mr. PAINE. We went out of the garage, I don't think he took the blanket then even.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is the Dallas police officer?

Mr. PAINE. Yes, plainclothesman, wearing black hats; one of them had one of those Texas hats. He collected all the useless stuff in our house, he went around and collected all the files of Ruth, and a drawer of cameras, mostly belonging to me. I tried to tell him one of the files contained our music or something like that, and the more I suggested it, that he not bother taking those, the more insistent he was in taking those objects. So with the various boxes and piles of stuff, mostly of our stuff, we got in the car and went off, and he was quite irked that we had wasted quite enough time around there, he said, and Ruth was irked, and everybody was irked by it. He wouldn't let us be helpful, and though we were he became angry when we tried to be helpful or something that we would suggest that he should do.

( 2 H 428 )

This is the one of the problems with the consent search. Without the search warrant, the police could take anything and everything. As has already been shown, the Dallas Police took many items that were not even Oswald's---items that belonged to Mr. and Mrs. Paine and were identified by the Paines as being their property. The Paine's attempts to dissuade the Police from taking their belongings created tension between them and their invaders.

The Search of the Garage

The Paine garage was also searched by the Dallas authorities. One of the pieces of evidence that was found in the garage an was confiscated was an old gray blanket that Marina Oswald told the Dallas Police held Oswald's rifle.

The reader should note that NOTHING on the above list supports the charge against Oswald for murdering a policeman, which the Dallas Police used as a reason for their desire to search the Paine property. That is, unless, Tippit was killed with a blanket, a camera, or several publications. To that end, the search of the Paine residence proved fruitless.

The Search of the Paine Property on November 23, 1963

Mrs. PAINE. Anyway, in the afternoon I was the only one there and I felt I had better get some grocery shopping done so as to be prepared for a long stay home just answering the doorbell and telling what I could to the people who wanted to know. I was just preparing to go to the grocery store when several officers arrived again from the Dallas Police Office and asked if they could search. This time I was in the yard, the front yard on the grass, and asked if they could search and held up their warrant and I said, yes, they could search. They said they were looking for something specific and I said, "I want to go to the grocery store, I'll just go and you go ahead and do your searching." ( 3 H 85 )

The "something specific" they were looking for had to have been something they had seen in the garage the day before, during the consent search.

The next day, once they KNEW what they were looking for, they GOT the search warrant and went back to the Paine residence to execute it.

Mr. BALL. On Saturday morning you went out to Irving again?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL. At this time you had a search warrant?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL. What did you search on this day?

Mr. ROSE. We made a search of the garage, mainly, on this day since quite a bit of Lee Oswald's property was in the garage.

( 7 H 231 )

And lo and behold, they "found" "the backyard photographs".

Mr. BALL. What did you find there?

Mr. ROSE. Well, I found two sea bags, three suitcases, and two cardboard boxes and all of them contained numerous items of property of Oswald.

Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?

Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.

( 7 H 231 )

THAT'S how Michael Paine saw CE-133-A on the day of the assassination and the cops didn't "FIND" it until Saturday.

Now you know.

Now you know also that Gus Rose was a liar when he said that they found it on Saturday.

So what else did Gus Rose lie about ?

What else did the Dallas Police lie about ?

MORE TO COME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.9.12 (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

???? I really fail to see the point of this. In 1963, it would have been an open question as to the admissibility of this evidence if we accept the premise that there was a dispute over whether indeed consent was properly reached or whether Oswald not being charged would have rendered any evidence gathered inadmissible. I seriously doubt this would have been a major impediment for the prosecution if it had ever come to trial.

As for the "motive" here, I'd say it'd also be hard to argue that the Dallas police had no particular reason to rush to gather evidence. For one, there was the very real possibility of a turf war and Fritz and the boys had every reason to believe that Hoover would try to push Dallas off the case. And, guess what? That's pretty well what happened anyway. The problem with too many CT's is they seem to live in another world where institutional turf wars are never heard of, where rival departments work seamlessly together. Canada Jack (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And lo and behold, they "found" "the backyard photographs". This is one of the sillier claims by the CT crowd. Marina Oswald, who at first thought Lee was guilty then came to accept that he was set up, nevertheless, to this very day, confirms SHE TOOK THOSE PHOTOS. She also testified about his rifle and how he'd constantly be testing it. The only mystery here is why the CTs are beating this dead horse some 30+ years after the HSCA panels - which concluded CONSPIRACY, by the way - confirmed that these images were NOT faked and were authentic images of Oswald holding his Carcano, the very photos which Marina to this day says she took. Canada Jack (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Did Marina Oswald initially denied knowing of the photos ?

can someone clarified this point ? according to the following site, Marina Oswald initially denied knowing of the photos then changed her story months later to agree with the Government http://cipshare.com/jfktruth_com/Oswald/RiflePhotos/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.62.95 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

She gave conflicting evidence over when she took the photos, but as far as I know, she didn't initially deny she took the photos. (I will double-check this) But her initial testimony to the FBI closely matches what she told the WC several months later. She later said that the photos were taken a bit later (not late Feb- early Mar 1963 as she told the FBI/WC, but late Mar/early Apr), which fits in with other evidence. Most importantly, she maintains to this day - even as she now thinks her husband was not responsible for the assassination - that she indeed took the photos. So this suggestion of "government pressure" to make her "change her story" doesn't add up. Why change her belief from "he's guilty" to "he's innocent" (which surely goes against what "the government" would want her to say), while sticking to her "I took the photos" claim? The link has evidence from one Jack White who, to put it charitably, doesn't know what he is talking about. Here is a good link for the HSCA investigation of this issue. [12] Canada Jack (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I found this on several sites <<FROM HARRISON LIVINGSTONE HIGH TREASON 11 PAGE 454...SEE AMAZON SEARCH BOOK.. Oswald's wife, Marina Oswald, is the one who supposedly took the backyard pictures. However, in a recently recorded interview, she said of the backyard photos, "THESE AREN'T THE PICTURES I TOOK" (Livingstone 454, emphasis added).>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.32.144 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If Marina said that, she had a LOOOOOOONG time to say it before the police and the Warren Commission in the years after the assassination, but didn't. So.... her sworn statements are perjury, we are now to believe? But her interview with Livingstone is true? She retracts her sworn testamony? That's news. So now she says she took backyard photos of Oswald with rifle, but DIFFERENT photos?? I suppose the one sent to de Mohrenschildt in April 1963 and signed by Oswald was not taken by Marina, then? So who DID take it? And all the evidence that matches the one photo neg we do possess, with having been physically in Marina's camera-- is faked, too? And we're supposed to believe that all the physical evidence is faked, in favor of the idea that Marina lied THEN, rather than lied (or has a poor memory) NOW? Come on.

If there's one thing this sugggests, however, is that the Oswald backyard photos need their own article as a main article (much like the Carcano has, and the Zapruder film has), not just a small section in the Oswald bio. There's a huge amount of information about them out there, and it needs to be summarized. S B H arris 16:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the inanity on display on some of these conspiracy sites is something to behold. From the link supplied by 194: "US Government study did not consider the non-matching chin" - a complete lie as the HSCA thoroughly investigated this issue. "Perpetrators erred by only taking 1 background photo." This is why one should take pronouncements from non-experts with a grain of salt. 133-A and 133-B were compared stereoscopically. The bush is 3-dimensional, proving the backgrounds are different. This effect can NOT be faked by adjusting the plane of a background image. (Which also, btw, shows that the Zapruder film was not altered as any manipulation, especially in the pre-digital era, would be nearly impossible to hide.) Migod, I could go on and on... Canada Jack (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A very funny thing is that the "square-chin-glue-on" nuts seem never to have considered the 1959 black and white Minsk photo that heads this very article. In which the lighting shows Oswald with the very same chin he shows in the back yard photos. Wups. S B H arris 16:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

my website and name (for Canada Jack)

Collapse block-evading sock

to Canada Jack

I Have finally got the webiste for you to vist.

http://www.giljesus.com/

I Think it time for me to tell you who I Am and why I believe that Kennedy WAS Killed by a Conspiracy and that Oswald innocent of both murders.

my name is Gil Jesus, I was born in 1953. I was 10 years old when President Kennedy was shot and killed in Texas.

When the December 14, 1963 issue of POST was discarded by my parents, I stashed it in my personal archive alongside several Popular Electronics, Superman comics, an autographed picture of Allen Shepherd, and my almost complete set of the Classics Illustrated, where it lanquished for years.

I have studied the assassination as a hobby, off and on, since 1966. As a former police officer and security specialist with a degree in criminal justice and my website, I believe that I bring to the table a unique viewpoint to the discussion of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty or not guilty of the two murders he was accused of.

when I Was growing up, I Believed that Oswald did acted alone, but when Jim Garrison introduced the possibility of a conspiracy to the American people, I finally took a close look at that magazine. What I saw changed me. before me, actual evidence came into my mind that Lee Harvey Oswald had not been on the sixth floor of the Dallas Schoolbook Depository when Kennedy was shot.

One of the most outrageous things I find about this case is that the head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, had pronounced Oswald guilty of the crimes

before his agency even got a chance to examine the evidence !!!!

I believe that the evidence on my website shows that Oswald did NOT kill President Kennedy and Officer Tippit, and that he did NOT take the shot at General Walker in April of 1963. there are serious questions regarding the evidence in the case and its handling, first by the Dallas Police and later by the FBI. What I WILL do on this website is point out the deficiencies in the prosecution's case and show you examples of criminal misconduct by the authorities, to the end that I hopefully cast enough doubt in your mind of Oswald's guilt.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.24.58 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you, Gil. On the outset, since you may be new to wikipedia, you should know that these sort of discussions don't properly reside on these pages - if your material here is deleted (including our responses to it) it is because it doesn't address issues with the page as this it what the discussion page is for - issues on content. Making the case for LHO's innocence is not addressing the page per se.

When I was growing up, I believed the Warren Commission was a crock. From 1972 or so, when I first read Six Seconds in Dallas, it was clear the WC ignored many things in coming to their conclusions. The SBT in particular was ludicrous. But not long after "JFK" came out, I did something I had avoided for some 20 years - I read the Warren Report. Now, I took it with a grain of salt, but I realized many things which other authors had long labelled "suspicious" or evidence of a set-up were readily - and often easily - addressed by the WC. For example, the motorcade route made the "suspicious" detour to take it in front of the TSBD for the simple reason there was no other way to get on the freeway.

But the clincher was seeing the new high-resolution Zapruder film and the reconstructions which made the SBT the ONLY way to account for the wounds to Kennedy and Connally. I realized manyb authors had simply LIED when it came to addressing the theory, and had left unanswered many basic questions, such as "what happened to the bullet which exited JFK's body." When I started to look at the evidence pointing to Oswald as the lone assassin with an open mind I was astounded at how strong the case was. Indeed, I realized how ludicrous the conspiracy crowd truly was in dismissing the veritable ton of evidence pointing directly to his guilt. And the Rube Goldberg contrivances required to execute a "conspiracy" given the reams of positive evidence we had. If ever there was a better use of the phrase "the Emperor is naked," I can think of none as it applies to the self-delusion of many in the conspiracy crowd. They are truly, absolutely, unchangeably convinced Oswald was innocent (at least, many are, not all), and no amount of common sense, let alone evidence, will change their mind.

For example, I had a recent debate with someone on Youtube about the medical evidence and the contrast between the testimony from Parkland saying "rear exit wound" and the Bethesda pathologists, the photos and the forensic pathologists who ALL said "no rear exit wound." And what was clear was, after he recited the same witness testimony again and again and again, he and many others are simply unwilling to look at the evidence which suggest Oswald did it alone. The autopsy evidence is, basically, irrefutable. But the blind spot is so huge that he simply refused to address it, even as I showed how those witnesses he cited were likely wrong or misinterpreting what they saw and even after literally dozens of requests to even supply a rationale as to how the pathologists could be so wrong, let alone the photos.

There are so many myths and so much bullshit on this case that it is hard to get one's head around it all. But you cited one piece of old nonsense above... "J. Edgar Hoover, had pronounced Oswald guilty of the crimes before his agency even got a chance to examine the evidence !!!!

In hindsight, given all the conspiracy "evidence" we have now, it seems like a suspiciously fast rush to judgement and perhaps "smoking gun" in how the government already had their "lone gunman" story set in stone while Kennedy's corpse was still warm. But this sort of talk is what we see on a normal basis within police circles when police arrest someone they have little doubt was behind a criminal act. They are now much more circumspect of course, but when OJ was arrested after the murder of his wife and her friend, would we call it a "rush to judgement" if one voiced the assumption that there was little doubt OJ committed the crime? We tend to forget that the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is mainly the standard for a court - one must present the evidence which establishes guilt. But before a person goes to court, police, as you know, must have reasonable cause to presume a person is guilty of a crime, and in the case of LHO, there was very strong reason to believe that he alone had done it within a few hours of his arrest. One easily forgets that in those early hours it seemed pretty clear that they had their man, as this guy was very quickly traced to the assumed murder weapon, and he had fled the building and killed a cop, then resisted arrest shortly thereafter.

Indeed, given the instant presumption that the right-wing had been behind the killing, law-enforcement agencies were under a lot of pressure to establish fairly quickly a reasonable picture of what happened, and within 24 hours there was a pretty clear picture of what happened. The sort of questions raised by the CT crowd were far from obvious that early on. Three shots, three hits. Only one gunman seen, and LHO fit the bill as someone who worked at the TSBD and someone who killed a cop while apparently avoiding arrest. And someone who was soon matched to the rifle thought to have been the murder weapon. The case seemed closed even before Oswald was killed. Canada Jack (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been obvious for some time who you are. Save your "breath" here on WP and use it to write on your site. This TALK page is not really the place to discuss evidence for whether Lee Oswald was the murderer. It's the place to discuss the WP article, which means mostly reliable and verifiable sources of opinions about that matter. Which spaces limits almost entirely to government commissions, not your personal webpage.

Now, because occasionally a really good arguement does trump authority, and because we're human, sometimes editors here are willing to engage in short debates, provided that the arguments on one side are short, concise, logical, and interesting. And provided that the correspondant actually shows evidence of reacting to arguments to the contrary. You do none of these things. Your typical MO is to put up pages and pages on a subject, then ignore any rebuttal. None of us are interested in that. For example, you put up a theory that requires that Oswald take 75 seconds to make it from nest to lunchroom, and I put up a histories mysteries study that shows conclusively that a person of his build could make it in 48 seconds without ever running or even breathing hard. You don't answer that. That means you're dishonest in your method. So I'm not interested in interacting with you. S B H arris 18:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:LHO14.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:LHO14.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

proof part 1

Collapse block-evading sock

google these videos to see the proof

One Rifle or Two ?

in that video Was the Depository rifle REALLY the rifle that Oswald Ordered ?

Gil Jesus (Me) examines the differences between the sling mounts on the rifle in the "backyard photo" and the rifle removed from the Texas School Book Depository.

Couch film shows Baker running toward TSBD

The Malcolm Couch film, taken just seconds after the last shot, shows Dallas motorcycle Officer Marrion Baker running toward the Texas School Book Depository. I've slowed the film down to show Baker dismounting his motorcycle just east of the light signal where he testified he parked it. He then runs toward the entrance of the building.

you say that Oswald had enough time to get to the lunchroom but you wrong!

The significance of this film is in the timing of the event, showing that Baker arrived at the building 5-10 seconds BEFORE the Warren Commission said he did and thus he arrived at the lunchroom and encountered Oswald 5-10 seconds EARLIER than was possible for a gunman from the 6th floor to have been there. Because Oswald was in the lunchroom before Baker , he could NOT have been the gunman on the 6th floor.

and

"Agents" fingerprinted Oswald corpse

Paul Groody, the mortician who recieved Oswald's body after his autopsy, says that in the early morning of Monday, November 25th, "agents" visited his funeral home and asked to be alone with Oswald's body. After they left, he had to remove fingerprint ink from Oswald's fingers and hands. Since Oswald's fingerprints were available from the Marine Corps, the New Orleans Police and the Dallas Police, what possible reason could there be for representatives of a government agency to fingerprint Oswald's corpse ? Could there have been more than one "Oswald" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.9.12 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The FBI had found a partial palm-print on the rifle barrel covered by the stock. It is extremely unlikely that any police agency or the military had ever palm-printed Oswald. Thus, the FBI now needed to go back to his corpse and do that. All this extremely unlikely if he was being set up as a patsy. While they were collecting the palm print it would not surprise me if they went ahead and collected (yet one more) set of finger prints to go along with it. In order to positively I.D. the new palm-print, if for no other reason! S B H arris 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

you wrong there was no fringerprints on the rilfe

Dallas Police: Rifle had no Fingerprints on it

in that video NBC newsman David Brinkley notes that the Dallas Police reported that "a foreign-made rifle believed to have been used in the shooting of the President HAD NO FINGERPRINTS ON IT."

and I Wanted canda jack to read this not you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.9.12 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

SB has it right on the fingerprints. Fingerprints were in fact found. Brinkley probably was reporting on a cursory examination of the weapon.

Gil Jesus (Me) examines the differences between the sling mounts on the rifle in the "backyard photo" and the rifle removed from the Texas School Book Depository.

Numerous comparisons have been made between the photos taken where the rifle was found, it being recovered, the backyard photos and the rifle said to be the murder weapon. The rifles depicted are one and the same.

The Malcolm Couch film, taken just seconds after the last shot, shows Dallas motorcycle Officer Marrion Baker running toward the Texas School Book Depository.

"Just seconds." Here is something from another page on this - We know when, to within a second, of when this footage shows Baker, as it calibrates with the footage Dave Weigman who caught the presidential limousine before it reached the underpass. Far from the "15 seconds" Baker estimated it took to get in the front door and the "by 10 seconds" estimated by some conspiracy theorists, Baker is last seen in the Couch footage 18 seconds after the third shot, and it would have taken him a further 13 seconds to get to the front door at the same pace, let alone get in the door (Bugliosi, endnotes, p. 471). This adds much more time than most have supposed before Baker encountered Oswald. Canada Jack (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You can do the total Oswald sequence, from 6th floor firing to 2nd floor lunchroom arrival, in 48 seconds, without breaking into anything more than a rapid walk. If you want to play with the times, you need to push it at the OTHER end also. [13].

The fingerprint and palmprint story is complicated, and I won't re-tell it, except to note that the palmprint WAS on the barrel under the stock. However, the Dallas police actually lifted it first. Read it here: [14] S B H arris 20:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, check out the 11-minute time "Oswald" takes in a timed trial from his rooming house, to the Tippit shooting site on Patton Street, going east. [15] And he's going in the correct direction, too, which is east, same as Tippit, who pulls him over just east of the corner of East 10th Steet and Patton, with both Tippit and Oswald going east in the same direction ON Patton. See [16] above. I'm beginning to think most conspiracy people ride in powerchairs or use canes. S B H arris 20:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The photo is a known fake, photos taken by the warren commission of the rifle show it changed its font style for the stamp.--Biebersbro2 (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mexico and second Oswald

I removed a bunch of material which questioned whether Oswald in fact was the person who visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico. The over-use of "alleged" etc suggests there was a huge disagreement on this issue, when the differences were not so great. The Warren Commission concluded it was Oswald. The HSCA agreed that the question whether Oswald was in Mexico City was answered by the WC, though they weren't as definitive about Oswald at the embassies/consuls saying though the majority of evidence suggests it was OSwald, the possibility it wasn't can't be totally dismissed.

It would be better, given the approach on related articles, to state the information as factual, and note that one investigation wasn't as definitive as the other in that one issue. Canada Jack (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Did some more clean-up of the article, including removing some lines which seemed to want to suggest some sort of connection to the FBI, CIA, etc. without any reason why this is of any significance. (And, sorry, reading magazines in a garage that occasionally fixed cars for the Secret Service is of no significance unless someone spells out how this is of any significance.) However, I've not touched (yet) some of the material dealing with 544 Camp Street and Guy Bannister. In my view, this material is only of relevance to suggestions that Oswald was involved with others in the assassination and/or was some sort of FBI or CIA (or, rather bizarrely, if one knows the agencies in question) or BOTH... And this therefore should be in the short section at the end spelling out some of these connections which some suggest a conspiracy of some sort. Canada Jack (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

All good edits. BTW, as far as I can tell, this text is just flat-out false: "Oswald's rush to be considered a leading officer of the FPCC, without the permission of FPCC leaders, was considered suspicious by the FPCC." The FPCC warned Oswald that what he was doing was probably hopeless, but I've never heard of them saying, "We thought he might be an infiltrator." Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The warren comission knew what answer it wanted from the start, no surprise it got it. --Biebersbro2 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, since the Soviet agents would later corroborate that Oswald indeed was the man in Mexico, the answer the WC supposedly wanted from the start turned out to be the correct answer. Canada Jack (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oswald WAS just a Patsy

Collapse block-evading sock

Oswald did NOT kill President Kennedy and Officer Tippit, and he did NOT take the shot at General Walker in April of 1963, no dobut about it. I believe that there are serious questions regarding the evidence in the case and its handling, first by the Dallas Police and later by the FBI and the Warren Commission.

Problems with the Government's Case Against Lee Oswald

The Warren Commission:

Ignored evidence that Oswald did not know the motorcade route and drew suspicion on his visit to the Paine residence on November 21st.

Wrongly discredited the reliable and consistent testimony of the only two witnesses who saw the package Oswald carried to work that morning because their description meant that the package could not have contained the Depository rifle.

Concluded that Oswald made a paper gunsack in order to conceal the rifle, citing no evidence to support that conclusion.

Concluded that the sack carried the rifle although its own expert testified that it never did.

Concluded that no Depository employee saw Oswald between 11:55am and 12:30 pm and suppressed from the Report evidence from three witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the FIRST floor during that time.

Both rejected and accepted the identification of Oswald as the gunman in the window from a man who admittedly lied to police, who constantly contradicted himself and who described physically impossible events.

Ignored clothing descriptions that indicated that Oswald was not the gunman.

Misrepresented the response time of Officer Marrion Baker and TSBD boss Roy Truly's ascent to the second floor lunchroom where they encountered Oswald by lengthening their time and likewise misrepresented the time required for a 6th floor gunman to descend to the lunchroom by shortening it.

Misrepresented evidence relevant to Oswald's rifle capability and practice.

Misrepresented that the police lineups were conducted fairly in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Suppressed from its Report that witness statements had been falsified.

Accepted the testimony of a cab driver whose description of Oswald as his passenger had Oswald wearing BOTH of his jackets AT THE SAME TIME !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.21.194 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there are serious questions regarding the evidence in the case and its handling, first by the Dallas Police and later by the FBI and the Warren Commission.

And many people believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. My first question - Have you read the Warren Report? This sort of naive nonsense from way too many people ensures that this thing will be debated ad infinitum.

Ignored evidence that Oswald did not know the motorcade route and drew suspicion on his visit to the Paine residence on November 21st. What the WC noted was the unusual circumstance of Oswald staying over that particular night, and they concluded that he did so to retrieve the rifle left at the premises. He "didn't" know the JFK route? You can't know that. If he was planning to shoot at the motorcade he'd likely pretend to be blissfully unaware. He acted like he didn't know to several at the TSBD as well. Which is a highly unlikely circumstance. Do you seriously believe that on the Thursday no one - NOT A SINGLE PERSON - at the TSBD referred in Oswald's presence to the pending motorcade with the president passing by the very next day? Give me a break.

Wrongly discredited the reliable and consistent testimony of the only two witnesses who saw the package Oswald carried to work that morning because their description meant that the package could not have contained the Depository rifle. Did these witnesses measure the package? What was Oswald doing on that particular day, taking a package into work? When asked about the package, Oswald LIED about this, saying he only carried his lunch. Why would he lie? Then he talked of taking "curtain rods" which were not needed at the rooming house and which were never located. The WC concluded that a) Oswald was seen carrying a package, b) told provable lies about that package, c) and a package linked to him generally matching the description was found in the sniper perch. It was linked via fibres to clothes he wore that day. The WC assessed that testimony and, in light of all the other testimony, concluded those witnesses were mistaken about the dimensions of the package. Which is everyday investigative work. What YOU have to do is establish a reasonable way to accept that testimony which fits the rest of the evidence. Which, of course, you won't - and CAN'T - do.

Concluded that no Depository employee saw Oswald between 11:55am and 12:30 pm and suppressed from the Report evidence from three witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the FIRST floor during that time. Oswald was last seen at 12:15 or so on the first floor, if memory serves. The pertinent question was where was he at 12:30? How is this "suppressing" evidence? Or are you suggesting it is "impossible" for him to make it up to the 6th floor in 15 minutes?

Both rejected and accepted the identification of Oswald as the gunman in the window from a man who admittedly lied to police, who constantly contradicted himself and who described physically impossible events. What a load of bullshit. Brennan? He told the WC that he feared for his life in identifying Oswald initially, so he wasn't conclusive. Where's the "lie," where's the "contradiction?"

Misrepresented the response time of Officer Marrion Baker and TSBD boss Roy Truly's ascent to the second floor lunchroom where they encountered Oswald by lengthening their time and likewise misrepresented the time required for a 6th floor gunman to descend to the lunchroom by shortening it. These times have been recreated and matched. Further, news film which shows Truly running to the door indicate that he was about 20 seconds short in his estimate of how long it took him to get there. Oswald had all the time in the world to get to the second floor.

Misrepresented evidence relevant to Oswald's rifle capability and practice. Bullshit. Oswald was a good shot as attested to in the Marines. Naive people like you refer to testimony by fellow marines who rate him a lousy shot, even though that characterization is belied by his shooting scores there. When it counted, he shot well. Besides, on the day of, according to the WC, he a) completely missed the limo, b) missed his target - JFK's head - instead hitting him in the back, then c) finally got his target. This was not incredible marksmanship by any stretch of the imagination.

Misrepresented that the police lineups were conducted fairly in spite of the evidence to the contrary. So?

Suppressed from its Report that witness statements had been falsified. ?? Give an example. Most who claim their testimony was changed are those who later came up with fantastic claims, only to be found not only telling the FBI etc exactly what they told the WC, AND often telling television reporters the same thing. Jean Hill is a good example of this.

Accepted the testimony of a cab driver whose description of Oswald as his passenger had Oswald wearing BOTH of his jackets AT THE SAME TIME !!! ?? So? Your point? This is the sort of nonsense we see all the time from the CT crowd. What are we to conclude? That Oswald never took the cab? This despite telling investigators he took the cab? That Oswald took TWO jackets to work and the only person of perhaps 50 who saw him that day didn't notice that? And, in the end, so what?

This is the usual sort of breathless nonsense I see from the CT crowd. I had a debate recently with someone over the head wound evidence. How, he asked, could all those Parkland doctors who claimed they saw a rear head wound be wrong? Then I explained how in fact they could be wrong, also citing witnesses who saw a side exit wound and asked the counter question: How could the pathologists and autopsy photos and x-rays and panels of forensic pathologists who ALL say no rear exit wound be "wrong"? He would not answer the question. In fact, he REFUSED to answer the question.

In the end, too many CTs don't get that there are in complex cases much evidence that often contradicts other evidence. And that investigators have to sort out the probable truth. I have YET to see a CT seriously address the POSITIVE evidence - and there is a TON of it - which links Oswald to the murder. Sure, you can find some evidence which MAY suggest some innocence - like the witnesses who said the package was too small - but what about the OTHER evidence which links that package to Oswald? They pretend it doesn't exist. Canada Jack (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

So he used a rifle that even the best sharp shooters in the USA military at the time could not get off the 3 shoots (Ignoring the wrong directions and there was atleast 5 shots) and hit a non moving target twice at that range no matter how many attempts they had, this is after they had to remount the scope so they could actually see the target. The rifle decided to change its stamp font during the warren commission for some reason. Also the back to neck shot which happened while he was sitting upright(as shown clearly on the Zap film) means the shooter was inside the boot LOL.--Biebersbro2 (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The feat has been recreated and bettered by numerous recreations - including using moving targets. Recall, far from some sort of "astounding" feat of marksmanship, if we go by the HSCA and WC, Oswald missed the limo completely with one shot, missed the target again on the second, hitting JFK in the back, then finally got a bullseye on the third. Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Lunchroom Encounter

Collapse block-evading sock

"Baker's movements were timed with a stopwatch. On the first test, the elapsed time between the simulated FIRST shot and Baker's arrival on the second-floor stair landing was 1 minute and 30 seconds. The second test run required 1 minute and 15 seconds." ( Report, Chap. 4, pg. 152 )

The execution of the reconstruction was in disregard of the known actions of the participants, stretching the time consumed for Baker to reach the second floor and shrinking the time of descent of a sixth floor gunman.

A False Start

The Commission timed Baker from the FIRST shot ( 3 H 252 ) while Baker testified that he didn't respond until after the LAST shot ( 3 H 247 )

For the timing of the reconstruction to be valid, it had to start AFTER the last shot.

The Commission claimed in its Report that the span of shots was anywhere from 4.8 to 7 seconds. ( Report, Chap. 3, pg. 117 )

Baker was flanking the last camera car, whose occupants included Malcolm Couch ( 6 H 156 ), Bob Jackson ( 2 H 158 ), Dillard ( 6 H 163-164 ) and Underwood ( 6 H 169 ). The men in the car recalled being in proximity to the intersection of Houston and Elm at the time of the last shot. ( 6 H 169, 6 H 158, 2 H 159 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIdbO3S2J6o&feature=channel_video_title

Had the reconstruction properly started after the last shot, Baker would have reached the TSBD in 8-10 seconds, rather than the 15 seconds ( Report, pg. 152 ) the Commission claimed it took.

This conclusion is supported by witness Pauline Sanders, who was standing outside the Texas School Book Depository and witnessed Officer Baker run into the building.

Roy Truly told the Secret Service that Baker made his way to the front entrance "almost immediately". ( CD 87, pg. 778 ) And almost a year later, Truly told CBS News that Baker's arrival "was just a matter of seconds after the last shot."

The occupants of the last camera car ( Camera Car 3 ) related how their car came to a stop or hesitated in the middle of the turn onto Elm St to let some photographers out. ( 2 H 162, 6 H 165, 169 ) Couch's film begins slightly BEFORE the stop, just as the car was making the turn ( 6 H 158 ).

From the testimony of those in the car and the scenes depicted in the film, it can be determined that Couch began filming NO MORE THAN 10 SECONDS AFTER THE LAST SHOT.

Camera Car 3 occupant Jackson told the Commission that after the last shot, as his car hesitated through the turn onto Elm, he saw a motorcycle policeman run up the Depository steps toward the front door.

Since the evidence shows that Baker reached the TSBD main entrance within 10 seconds, the reconstruction time is off by at least 5 seconds before Baker even gets into the building.

Shrinking of Baker's Time

The two reconstruction times reflect times taken when Baker "walked" or "kind of run". ( 3 H 253 ) As we can see from the Couch film, Baker did neither---he ran. And the witnesses said he ran. Baker admitted he ran ( 3 H 248-249 ). Truly gave a good description of this mad dash of Baker's. ( 3 H 221 )

So why did the Commission time Baker "walking" and "trotting" through his actions ?

Like I said, to stretch his response time.

The Commission claimed that Baker's time would have been LONGER because it didn't account for " jostling with the crowd of people on the steps". ( Report, 152-153 )

The Couch film eliminates the possibility that that slowed Baker down.

Eddie Piper saw Baker and Truly RUN into the building, not walking or trotting, yell up for an elevator and then climb the stairs. ( 6 H 385 )

Truly and Baker reached the second floor in under 85 seconds and the Couch film introduces the possibility that it may have been as little as 70 seconds since Baker parked his motorcycle within 10 seconds of the last shot.

Stretching the Gunman's Descent

The second part of the reconstruction, that of the actions of the sixth floor gunman, took 1:18 and 1:14 according to the Commission. ( 3 H 254 )

This reconstruction also suffered from serious omissions.

After the last shot, a minimum of 2.3 seconds must be added to the reconstructed time because the gunman operated the bolt of the rifle, ejecting the last fired shell and chambering a fourth cartridge.

In addition, witnesses claimed that the gunman had been in no hurry to leave the window. ( 2 H 159, 3 H 144 )

The "sniper's nest" was constructed in such a way as to inhibit movement in and out of it. Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney had to squeeze "between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there" ( 3 H 285 ).

To simulate the hiding of the rifle, the SS man ( Howlett ) "leaned over as if he were putting a rifle there" ( 3 H 253 ). But Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman reported that the rifle was "covered with boxes. It was well protected as far as the naked eye". ( 7 H 107 ) Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig said that the the ends of the rows between which the rifle had been pushed were closed off by boxes, so that one could not see through them. ( 6 H 269 )

Photographs of the area where the rifle was found support these two men's claims.

CE 719 shows that the rifle was found amid a cluster of boxes that did not permit easy access

and CE 517 shows that the rifle was upright between two rows of boxes that had partially overlapped on top, thus eliminating the possibility that the rifle had been merely dropped down between the stacks.

Concealment of the rifle required much maneuvering. In addition to squeezing between boxes to exit the sniper's nest, the gunman had to move cartons filled with books. The rifle itself had been very carefully placed in its position. The gunman had not left the window in any hurry. He had chambered one last round.

To the government's minimum time of 1:14 for the gunman to reach the second floor, add 6 or 7 seconds for the re-chambering, slow withdrawal and squeezing out of the sniper's nest. Next add another 15 or 20 seconds for the gunman to get to the area where the rifle was placed, place it there and cover it with boxes of books on top and on the ends so that it was not easily found.

That's anywhere from 1:35 to 1: 41 total time for a sixth floor gunman to have reached the second floor.

Had Oswald been the assassin, he would have reached the second floor AT LEAST 5 to 11 seconds AFTER Baker, and that's if Baker's response had him WALKING ( 1:30 ), which we know he didn't.

Since Oswald was in the lunchroom BEFORE Baker, we know he couldn't possibly have descended from the sixth floor.

If Oswald was Guilty, then would have he been shaken a little that he had actually shot a man down in his prime?

but Oswald was silent and cool, this recation is of more innconne.

Oswald in the Vestibule

Another piece of evidence proving that Oswald did not descend from the sixth floor is the Commission's conclusion that Baker "glimpsed" Oswald from the staircase in the vestibule through the window in the vestibule door and then rushed to the door :

"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.

if you have seen the picture taken from Commission Exhibit 1118, the blue line represents Oswald's path had he descended the rear stairs from the sixth floor. The pink striped area is the maximum area in the vestibule visible to Baker from the position ( red "X" ) he "glanced" someone in there.

Notice how the blue line does not intersect Baker's line of sight inside the vestibule. Baker could not have seen ANYONE in the vestibule who had entered it through the vestibule door if the door was closed.

Notice also the two red lines represent paths into the vestibule from both an adjoining hallway and the adjacent office area. Anyone entering the vestibule from either of those areas WAS in Baker's line of sight.

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.

The fact that Baker had to open ( 3 H 251 ) the mechanically closing door to the vestibule confirms that the door was closed and Oswald did not enter the vestibule through that door.

Baker told the Commission that "I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not." ( 3 H 255 )

Regardless, the Commission found that Oswald descended four flights on the rear stairs before Truly and Baker ascended one flight.

But the evidence is entirely consistent with Oswald ascending from the FRONT stairwell and from the first floor.

Oswald and the Coke

Gun in hand, he rushed to the door and saw a man about 20 feet away walking toward the other end of the lunchroom. The man was empty handed. ( Report, Pg. 6 )

The issue of whether or not Oswald had already made a purchase from the soda machine when the officer confronted him in the lunchroom is crucial in the timing of his alleged flight from the sixth floor. It creates a timing sequence where Oswald would have arrived at the lunchroom 10-15 seconds SOONER than Baker and makes it impossible for Baker to have seen him through the window of the vestibule door.

According to the Commission, Dallas Homicide Captain Fritz asked Oswald to account for himself at the time the President was shot. Oswald told him that he ate lunch in the first-floor lunchroom and then went to the second floor for a Coke which he brought downstairs. ( Report, pg. 182 )

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom? Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola. Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola? Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.

( 4 H 213 )

Baker was never asked under oath if he had seen a Coke in Oswald's hands. Roy Truly, Oswald's supervisor who accompanied Baker on the trek to the sixth floor by way of the lunchroom, was asked twice if Oswald had a Coke. Initially, Truly expressed some doubt as to whether or not he saw both of Oswald's hands.

Mr. BELIN. Could you see whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald had anything in either hand? Mr. TRULY. I noticed nothing in either hand. Mr. BELIN. Did you see both of his hands? Mr. TRULY. I am sure I did. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure. I did.

( 3 H 225 )

But later in his testimony, Mr. Truly has NO DOUBT about what he didn't see:

Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke? Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Mr. DULLES. No drink? Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.

( 3 H 239 )

Probably because Commission counsel failed to ask him during his testimony if he had noticed anything in Oswald's hands, Baker was asked by the FBI to give an affidavit regarding his encounter with Oswald in the lunchroom. In the handwritten statement, which is Commission Exhibit 3076, Baker makes no mention of seeing someone moving through the glass in the doorway and states that he "saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke".

The phrase "drinking a coke" is crossed out and initialed by Baker, but that deleted phrase, by its spontaneous mention, corroborates Oswald's story that he had already purchased a coke when stopped by Baker and makes a liar out of Roy Truly.

and as for that video about the time trial to the Lunchroom, it wrong, becasue

1. The actor who plays Oswald instantly gets up but Howrad berman said the gunman stood for 15 seconds like making sure he hit his target.

2. How is the test valid? the recontruction guy DIDN'T wipe the rifle of fingerprints as none of Oswald's were found on it whilst he was alive.The actor also would have been more shaken up if he had actually SHOT A PRESIDENT, and also there were two women on the stairs at the time of the shooting, neither of whom saw Oswald.

3. Oswald would have been going down from the 6th to the 2nd floor at a pace of 20 seconds a floor.

6th floor: 20sec

5th floor: 20sec

4th floor: 20sec

3rd floor: 20sec

2nd floor: 20sec

Total: 100sec

4. I have a hard time believing he would have walked. I would be more inclined to believe he ran after the shooting. If he made it to the second floor in 48 seconds, he would have been in the lunch room for 42 seconds all alone. My questions are, why would he stop there, and has anyone made the test as to how far he could have gotten if he would have ran?

5. Howard Brennan's testimony: "Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared."

6. 48 seconds and they didnt have him pause as brennan said , they didnt have him squeez out of the snipers nest (as mooney had to do to get in) they didnt have him wipe the rifle clean ,they didnt have him hide the rifle in the same manner as it was found .baker arrived at the lunchroom seconds before he said he did ,oswald was already in the lunchroom and bought a coke and truly had crossed the landing and started on the 3rd floor stairs and did not see oswald . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.6.55 (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Had the reconstruction properly started after the last shot, Baker would have reached the TSBD in 8-10 seconds, rather than the 15 seconds ( Report, pg. 152 ) the Commission claimed it took. Will this bullshit ever end? I pointed out above that Baker took significantly longer to get to the TSBD - which means Oswald had ample time to get to the door. How do we know this? Because the film showing him running can be calibrated to other films shot that day.

Here is some more oft-repeated bullshit: From the testimony of those in the car and the scenes depicted in the film, it can be determined that Couch began filming NO MORE THAN 10 SECONDS AFTER THE LAST SHOT. Sorry, buddy. The film can be calibrated to other films. Try more like 30 seconds to get to the TSBD.

From a previous discussion: We know when, to within a second, of when this footage shows Baker, as it calibrates with the footage Dave Weigman who caught the presidential limousine before it reached the underpass. Far from the "15 seconds" Baker estimated it took to get in the front door and the "by 10 seconds" estimated by some conspiracy theorists, Baker is last seen in the Couch footage 18 seconds after the third shot, and it would have taken him a further 13 seconds to get to the front door at the same pace, let alone get in the door (Bugliosi, endnotes, p. 471). This adds much more time than most have supposed before Baker encountered Oswald.

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. But Oswald HIMSELF claimed to use those stairs to ascend to the second floor! It's the same door, going up or coming down. When does this inanity ever end?

In the end, these inane attempts to explain away evidence omits some things we KNOW already. Such as SOMEONE was seen on that floor shooting at the motorcade. So SOMEONE had to stash the rifle many saw, then descend those staircases. How do we know the rifle was not previously stashed? Because witnesses SAW a rifle in the window and no one could have left the building carrying it! If not Oswald, then who? We have NO OTHER PERSON who could have done this as every person was accounted for in the TSBD and no strangers were seen! If Oswald "didn't have the time" to descend, then who ever DID shoot DIDN'T EITHER and would have been seen by Truly/Baker or the other women descending the staircase. This is what all those who spout this nonsense never address. To make THEIR account plausible, we need whoever was in the sniper's nest to VANISH INTO THIN AIR. And that is more plausible? Give me a break.

The phrase "drinking a coke" is crossed out and initialed by Baker, but that deleted phrase, by its spontaneous mention, corroborates Oswald's story that he had already purchased a coke when stopped by Baker and makes a liar out of Roy Truly. Bullshit. It may mean he a) heard that Oswald claimed he had a coke and he added that detail, or b) mean he saw OSwald near or in the direction of the coke machine or c) repeating what he may have heard Oswald say - that he was getting a coke. Bottom line, like it or not, he was not sure OSwald had the coke.

the recontruction guy DIDN'T wipe the rifle of fingerprints as none of Oswald's were found on it whilst he was alive.The actor also would have been more shaken up if he had actually SHOT A PRESIDENT, and also there were two women on the stairs at the time of the shooting, neither of whom saw Oswald. We don't know if Oswald wiped the rifle. The lack of USABLE fingerprints does not mean he wiped the rifle! AS for the assumption the "actor" would have been "more shaken up," what an interesting observation. Here we have, if we believe the CT crowd, one of the most heinous acts in world history, occurring just moments before, mere yards away, and what does the "innocent" LHO do? Why, what everyone would do - he decides this calls for a Coke! Then, when the Truly/Baker encounter happens, it is totally unremarkable to LHO that these two are agitated, that they are looking for someone. If this was an innocent encounter, a normal person would be in a state of shock that the president was shot just moments before, or shocked at the sight of a cop searching the building. LHO was "calm and cool"? That in itself is suspicious. In fact, it's a completely bizarre reaction after the assassination if he had nothing to do with it, but COMPLETELY consistent with someone who wanted to act if "all was normal" even though (even if innocent) it most certainly was not. Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).

^ Ownership and Possession of Assassination Weapon, Warren Commission Report, p. 118–119.

[2] Ownership and Possession of Assassination Weapon, Warren Commission Report, p. 118–119.

[n 1]

[1]