Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 9

Removal of JFK's body from Texas

 * Seeing as in 1963, it was not a Federal crime to assassinate the President of the United States, the trial against Oswald would have been held in Texas. The Secret Service agents broke Texas law by removing the President's body from the state, therefore wouldn't the case against Oswald have been dismissed?--jeanne (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but Governor Connally was alive and kicking. Man, he was tough. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oswald would have stood trial for the murder of Tippitt and attempted murder of Connally. Strange, how the Secret Service took the body of Kennedy out of Texas knowing Oswald could not legally be tried for the murder sans body.--jeanne (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing in Texas statutory or case law supports such a disallowance. Related, a decision by the Texas Court of Appeals which the U.S. Supreme Court let stand:
 * Mahaffey v. State (Cr.App. 1971) 471 S.W.2d 801, certiorari denied 92 S.Ct. 1297, 405 U.S. 1018, 31 L.Ed.2d 480.
 * "In the first ground of error, complaint is made because the court permitted Dr. Dowdey [the Dallas County medical examiner] to testify from an autopsy report which had been prepared by another doctor. It is contended that the testimony was hearsay and was in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St. and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States....
 * "The report was admitted before the court but not before the jury. Dr. Dowdey did not participate in the autopsy, but from the report prepared by Dr. Rose, he testified that Dennis died as a result of injuries caused by the bullet.
 * "The testimony of Dr. Dowdey was relevant and admissible in evidence.
 * "The contention that Article 49.25, V.A.C.C.P., Article 3731a, V.A.C.S., and Article 3737e, V.A.C.S., as applied to the facts of this case as unconstitutional is overruled.
 * "The first ground of error is overruled....
 * "Complaint is made in the third ground of error because the court permitted the testimony of Dr. Dowdey that the finding of cause of death in the autopsy report was consistent with the descriptions of the body as set out in the report because it was hearsay. The witness testified from facts recited in the autopsy report. Based upon his own qualifications as a physician and pathologist, he was properly allowed to express an opinion as to the correctness of the cause of death as stated in the report. This Court held that it was proper for a pathologist to testify to his own expert opinion based upon the autopsy report made by another pathologist over the objection that it was hearsay. [emphasis added] Neely v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 552.
 * "No error has been shown. The third ground of error is overruled."
 * — Walloon (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dr. Earl Rose, who also had the distinction of autopsying J.D. Tippit, Oswald and Ruby was part of the medical team that handled the President at Parkland. It was Rose who attempted to stop the Secret Service from removing JFK's body from the hospital. The Secret Service responded by holding Dr. Rose at gunpoint while wheeling the President out of the building. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you supply a first-hand account of Secret Service agents pointing their guns at anyone inside Parkland Hospital? — Walloon (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As earlier as 1967 in The Death of a President William Manchester spent a full ten pages on the tense confrontation between Rose and the Secret Service. That account never mentioned a weapon leaving its holster however. For that little addition to the story, we have Crenshaw's JFK: Conspiracy of Silence (1992).
 * "When the entourage had moved into the main hall, Dr. Earl Rose, chief of forensic pathology, confronted the men in suits. Roy Kellerman, the man leading the group, looked sternly at Dr. Rose and announced, "My friend, this is the body of the President of the United States, and we are going to take it back to Washington." Dr. Rose bristled and replied, "No, that's not the way things are. When there's a homicide, we must have an autopsy." "He's the President. He's going with us," Kellerman barked, with increased intensity in his voice. "The body stays," Dr. Rose said with equal poignancy. Kellerman took an erect stance and brought his firearm into a ready position. The other men in suits followed course by draping their coattails behind the butts of their holstered pistols. How brave of these men, wearing their Brooks Brothers suits with icons of distinction (color-coded Secret Service buttons) pinned to their lapels, willing to shoot an unarmed doctor to secure a corpse. "My friend, my name is Roy Kellerman. I am special agent in charge of the White House detail of the Secret Service. We are taking President Kennedy back to the capitol." "You are not taking the body anywhere. There's a law here. We're going to enforce it." Admiral George Burkley, White House Medical Officer, said, "Mrs. Kennedy is going to stay exactly where she is until the body is moved. We can't have that … he's the President of the United States." "That doesn't matter," Dr. Rose replied rigidly. "You can't lose the chain of evidence." For the second time that day, there was little doubt in my mind as to the significance of what was happening before me. "Goddammit, get your ass out of the way before you get hurt," screamed another one of the men in suits. Another snapped, "We're taking the body, now." Strange, I thought, this President is getting more protection dead than he did when he was alive. Had Dr. Rose not stepped aside I'm sure that those thugs would have shot him. They would have killed me and anyone else who got in their way." Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Why weren't they as protective of JFK when he was in the motorcade? And why were they so adamant that his body had to be moved out of Texas jurisdiction? Without an autopsy performed in the state of Texas, LHO could not have been tried for his murder. The agents didn't care. WHY did they not care, unless they knew Oswald wouldn't live long enough to stand trial anyway? Another thing which makes me laugh when the Oswald-acted-alone group insist that LHO couldn't have been part of a conspiracy,because nobody would trust a nut like Oswald with the job. Yeah, well the Bulgarian Secret Service entrusted a pretty nutty guy with the task of shooting the Pope in 1981. Oh Joe, had they shot DR. Rose, do you think Oswald would have been made to take the rap for that killing as well? I just don't know how they got away with all of that. The entire assassination was obviously one MASSIVE cover-up.--jeanne (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not touching any of that speculative stuff on the Secret Service. If you're really interested in the weird story of the two autopsies, try Lifton's Best Evidence. Be careful though, Lifton got some things wrong. You might also read the opinions of Dr. Cyril Wecht on the matter. But again, his opinions are at odds with other doctors who had access to the same information he had. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * " Without an autopsy performed in the state of Texas, LHO could not have been tried for his murder." Jeanne, I'll repeat what I said above: nothing in Texas statutory law or Texas case law supports your assumption. For a contrary decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see what I wrote above. — Walloon (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oswald's Brother
Robert Oswald has stated in interview that he believes his brother guilty of having shot JFK. When he saw L.H. Oswald in police custody, he found him strangely detached in the face of being held for the killing of the most important man on earth. This fits a profile: psycopaths do not feel "normal" emotions, such as anxiety or confusion, in the same way as do others. Then again, psyco-sociopaths are known to be able to pass lie detector tests, and I believe Oswald refused one.opusv5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The psychological make-up of a person has no bearing on whether or not they had the opportunity to commit murder. Anyone can fit the profile of a killer, some are detached loners, some are respectable pillars of the community, others are simple thugs who thrive on violence. It doesn't matter whether Oswald was any of these, it matters whether he had the opportunity in 90 seconds to do all of the things the Warren report claimed he had.--jeanne (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the 1 minute 30 seconds is the time it took Truly to reach the lunchroom from outside at the time of the first shot.  Oswalds movements were recreated in about 1 minute 18 seconds.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 minute and 18 seconds is still a very short period of time to do the things Oswald is alleged to have done.--jeanne (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops I meant Baker. Truly was the building manager.  But the only thing the WC has Oswald doing, is firing three shots at a minimum of 7.1-7.9 seconds.  Going across the floor to go down four flight of stairs (and these are not long skyscraper type stairs) to the second floor where he encountered Baker and Truly.  Also the WC allows that the time frame may have been longer on November 22 because of crowd jostling and other things going on.  The 90 seconds is a minimum time. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From p. 152 of the Warren Report: Two recreations were done for Oswald's time to the second floor. One was 74 seconds, the other 78. Two were also done for Baker. One was 75 seconds, the other 90. From the WC: The minimum time required by Baker to park his motorcycle and reach the second-floor lunchroom was within 3 seconds of the time needed to walk from the southeast corner of the sixth floor down the stairway to the lunchroom.
 * So the WC makes this work, as long as the everyone forgets about the stuff they knew about but skipped: Looking out the window for several seconds after the shooting, escaping from the sniper's nest (which was somehow done either without pushing the 50 lb. boxes out of the way, or by pushing them back into place after exiting the nest), hiding the rifle between stacks of boxes, pushing another full box over the two stacks with the rifle in between, descending the stairs while somehow completely avoiding Victoria Adams, and (possibly) buying a Coke. All without breaking a sweat. Man, what a cool customer. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember the coke machines were slow in those days, and the bottles had to be opened with an opener attached to the machine. I saw a programme today on Italian tv. It seems as if there may have been 6 shots fired at the motorcade, not 4. And Gov. Connally insisted he was still waving at the crowd when he heard the shot that got Kennedy through the throat. The Governor himself was hit 2 seconds later. How did the bullet remain poised in the air for 2 seconds?!!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is some evidence (from Marina Oswald) that Oswald tried to assasinate a prominent right-winger named Walker shortly before JFK's assasination. If this be true, he at least had it in him to shoot to kill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said before, his personality is irrelevent. The discussion here is opportunity.--jeanne (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job JGF. As I have said repeatedly, you continually find holes in the Warren narrative without misquoting or inaccurately analyzing/summarizing the report.  Yes, the WC allows for the 90 second minimum time but makes room for a longer time period as well.  One thing, both Truly and Baker remember Oswald's hands being empty during their encounter, and as for Adams, either the WC misquotes or her or she was incorrect, her possible re-entry into the building would have had to been about five minutes after the shooting unless Lovelady was wrong about the time he returned to the building. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. Ram's observations are all correct and relevant and I'd love to address them:
 * 1. Baker's run: The WC observes that possibly Baker had more than 90 seconds to reach the lunchroom, because there's no way the recreations could fully take into account the chaos of the situation right after the assassination. A good point.
 * 2. Who was Victoria Adams? Adams and Sandra Styles watched the motorcade from the fourth floor and descended the same staircase used by Oswald after the assassination. According to Adams, they were on the staircase 30 to 60 seconds after the shooting, and she saw and heard no one. The WC chose to concluded that Adams was mistaken, and that she had not descended the staircase for several minutes. They discounted Adams' testimony because she also claimed to see Billy Lovelady immediately upon her arrival on the the first floor. Lovelady had made a statement in April of 1964 that he had immediately left the SBD after the shooting, and did not return for several minutes. However, the WC chose to accept this later account from Lovelady, and ignore his sworn affidavit given on the day of the assassination, in which he stated that immediately after the shooting he went back into the SBD to help direct police officers. This earlier account is completely consistent with Victoria Adams statement.
 * 3. What about the Coke bottle? In Baker's WC testimony, he stated that Oswald had nothing in his hands when he encountered him in the lunchroom. However, Baker subsequently submitted a handwritten statement, in which he wrote of Oswald, "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom, drinking a Coke." The words "drinking a Coke" were subsequently scratched out and initialed by the officer. Very confusing. What we do know is, Oswald's next move was not to leave the building, but to casually stroll past the desk of SBD employee Mrs. R. Reid, while drinking a Coke from the lunchroom.
 * This affair has given rise to my favorite conspiracy theory of all time, "The Coca-Cola Theory." J.I. Rodale, the editor of Organic Gardening and Farming, suggested in the 1960's that Oswald assassinated JFK due to mental impairment stemming from an addiction to refined sugar, as evidenced by his need for his favorite beverage immediately after the assassination. I guess it's too bad that Coke didn't switch to corn syrup sooner, or JFK might have lived. On the other hand, Oswald might still have been able to obtain sugar-sweetened Coke on his trip to Mexico. Hmm. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That explains why I'm slightly mad. Wasn't Lovelady the man seen in front of the TSBD as the motorcade was passing? I've seen the photo which was taken at that moment and he's there on the left.--jeanne (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The big issue with the WC "conclusions" on the time it took for Baker and Truly to meet up with Oswald is that it is inconsistent to the point of not meaning anything. It says the maximum time for their recreation is 90 seconds, but then says but it could have taken longer.  In effect, nullifying their conclusion by saying two things at once.  And jeanne yes, that was concluded to be Lovelady.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the Coke theory, you have to admit Oswald drinking the Coke, and then a bottle being pictured on the retaining wall by the knoll, can't just be coincidence. Can it? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Of course, Coke might be the patsy. I've never trusted PepsiCo. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

South-east corner window

 * I just saw a documentary on Italian television regarding the JFK assassination. It showed a photo taken of the TSBD, minutes after the assassination. The only window that was open was the south-east corner window, allegedly used by Oswald to fire at the motorcade. If this window was the only one open in the entire row of windows, we can safely presume that the shooter opened it himself thereby leaving prints. It would be a really far stretch of the imagination to say that Oswald had been lucky again in finding that some other employee had kindly left it open for him earlier, yet had not bothered to open any other windows. Remember November in Texas is quite cool. SO WHERE ARE THE PRINTS? None were found, so obviously that can only mean that the shooter (notice I do not say assassin), or someone who came up later, wiped away the prints. Now if that person was our Russian-speaking, Marxist, ex-Marine warehouse clerk by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, well that just adds another activity he managed to complete in the narrow 90 seconds-1 minute, 18 seconds time margin allocated him by the Warren Commission.--jeanne (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeanne, it is a matter of public record that Dallas was unseasonably warm that day. The weather predicted that it would be cool, hence Jackie's wool coat, but it was a warm day.  So first, anyone could have opened that window!  Also fingerprints are not always easily left all over the place. Second, you are ignoring the prints that were found in that area, by focusing on this window argument.  Third, if he did wipe away prints, as you speculate, clearly he didn't do a good job as several were found in the nearby boxes and on the rifle.  Fourth, and as a matter of personal knowledge, I can tell you that if any prints were found on the window that matched Oswald's it wouldn't be as probative as you believe.  Any defense counsel worth his salt would simply argue "of course LHO prints were there, he had worked at the company for weeks." I also imagine that LHO's prints would have existed alongside the numerous people who worked for the company. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was the only window open and opened less than half-way, allowing enough space for a rifleman. By your argument, then it was logical for LHO to leave prints on the boxes as well, seeing as he would have touched the boxes during his course of work. The rifle only contained one print, on the inside. A lawyer would have gone berserk over that one. Oh, did they find the cloth he used to wipe down the gun?--jeanne (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if there was a trial and no murder weapon was found, the prints on the boxes would not be that probative. But combined with the other evidence, that was found, it makes the window argument less necessary.  Clearly, if there were prints on the gun, the boxes, the window, and a rag found with prints on it, it would be even more of a slam dunk. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only print found on the gun was on the INSIDE. Only two of the boxes had prints. Not much evidence to convict a man, especially as nobody SAW Oswald fire at the motorcade.--jeanne (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not true. Prints were found on the barrel, wooden stock, and trigger housing. Among the witnesses who saw a man fire from the TSBD was Brennan (whose description of the man led the police to Oswald), Amos Lee Euins, and Robert H. Jackson. Malcolm O. Couch saw a rifle in the window after noticing two black workers in the fifth floor window straining to look above them, and there are other witnesses who saw various glimpses of the shooting in progress.  Last thing, prints alone would not be enough to convict Oswald.  But the prints in connection with the eyewitness testimony, and the forensics evidence linking Oswalds Carcano to the crime to the exclusion of all other guns is more than enough to find him guilty. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between "is there enough evidence to get a conviction" and "Oswald really was the lone assassin."
 * Defense of the WR often falls back on Howard Brennan. To me, Brennan's "identification" of Oswald can be dismissed. It's true that by 12:45, police had broadcast the description of a suspect including height, weight, age, and physical build. The WC chose to presume that this description had come from Brennan. There's no evidence that it actually did. If Brennan was looking up at the sixth floor he would have seen, at most, Oswald's head and shoulders. And I just don't buy a man with questionable eyesight making a positive identification from 120 feet away.
 * And I certainly don't buy the "Oswald's Cacarno to the exclusion of all other evidence" conclusion. The head shot was clearly a fragmentation bullet, not a sniper rifle bullet of the kind used by the Cacarno. And only the stone-age science of the 1960's would lead to the conclusion that all the recovered bullet fragments came from the same "batch" of bullets. Modern analysis suggests otherwise . Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always thought that it was CE399 that was matched to the Carcano to the "exclusion of all others" and the fragments of the other bullet(s) found show they were from the same batch? As for proof of a lone assassin, I'm not well versed enough to prove that, and the WC with its faults isn't really that helpful.  It's a good thing I'm only trying to point out that there was enough evidence to get a conviction-- despite the claims of others.  I've always made room for the fact that Oswald could have been helped... a conspiracy of two nuts.  However, in my opinion, any search for conspiracy has to begin with Oswald, as the evidence and the inferences you can make from that evidence indicate he was much more than just a patsy. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Lewis Addition
I tagged it because although there isn't really any doubt that these claims were made, I am not sure they belong in this article. This appears to be a Roscoe white type of thing where someone makes an unverified claim to be a witness to history. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This book by Ron Lewis was published by "Lewcom Productions", so I've removed the material as it's from a self-published book. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Backyard photos
Can we categorically state that Marina Oswald took the "backyard photographs" given that in her testimonies the number of pictures taken changes. When first questioned she is very precise and said she had taken ONLY ONE photograph, 133-A, which subsequently appeared on the cover of Life Magazine. We know this to be a false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The text of the article addresses the fact that critics have questioned both the origin and authenticity of the photographs. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The text clearly states that Marina Oswald took the pictures, this is disputed given that she had no idea how many photographs are in existance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.79.51 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The text as written is acceptable as long as it is backed by a citation from a reliable source. This article is a biography of Lee Harvey Oswald. Material on the minutiae of the debate regarding the authenticity of the photographs (possibly) belongs in the articles on Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or the HSCA. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The old photo is in the news again: "Dartmouth scientist says Oswald rifle photo real" by Holly Ramer, Associated Press Writer – Thu Nov 5, 6:19 pm ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_re_us/us_oswald_photo Шизомби (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible motives

 * The Warren Commission gives the possible motives of LHO for the assassination, which are very weak and do not hold up to closer scrutiny. For example, if Oswald shot Kennedy to gain a place in history, he would have shot him as the motorcade directly faced the TSBD and could not miss hitting him. He wouldn't have tried to escape either. This motive, therefore, crumbles into dust. As for being a Marxist, why would a committed Marxist want to replace Kennedy with Johnson, who was far more conservative than JFK? Doesn't make sense either. We can safely say that Lee Harvey Oswald had no motive for killing President Kennedy. This removes the motive, now all we're left with is the means and opportunity, which is the mail-order 1890-vintage Carcano rifle and eight seconds to fire three shots at a moving target from a rusted scope with a large oak tree in the way. Too bad the WC didn't employ the services of Lt. Columbo.--jeanne (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Officer Tippit

 * The article fails to mention why Tippit stopped Oswald in Oak Cliff. Yes, The WC claimed it was the highly-accurate description provided by Howard Brennan, which the police subsequently relayed via radio to all policemen in the greater Dallas area: white man, 5'10, 165 pounds, slender build, approximately 30 years old,. They also said that the suspect was believed to be armed with a 30.caliber rifle. Ok, let's digest this bit by bit, shall we? Starting with the last: Oswald was not armed with a 30.caliber rifle-how the police could have presumed the assassin would attempt to walk the streets of Dallas armed with a rifle, especially as his rifle was found hidden behind boxes at the TSBD is beyond comprehension. Also remember Officer Baker encountered Oswald on the 2nd floor of the TSBD sans rifle! Ok, so that part's easily eliminated. Now, for the age and weight. Oswald was only 24 and didn't look 30. That's a good six years age difference. Not many 24 years olds can be mistaken for thirty. He did not weigh 165, but instead 15 pounds less. So that just leaves a slender white man of 5'10. How many people all over Dallas fitted that description? Besides, Tippit in his patrol car approached him from BEHIND. According to author Michael T. Griffith, none of the witnesses who saw Officer Tippit's assailant, described him as "acting strange or suspicious" prior to the shooting. So, why did an ordinary policeman cruising around in his patrol car, become suddenly inspired with the notion that the slender white man walking ahead of him along a residential street, three miles from the scene of the crime, was the assassin of the most powerful man on the planet? A lightning bolt from heaven? ESP? The ghost of JFK whispering in his ear? The article fails to address this issue entirely.--jeanne (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC

I reckon it could be added, with reliable sources backing it. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point about the WALKING part. If they (cops) did not know who they had to find, then why would a cop stop a WALKING mand when you would think that he would look for someone in a car? Besides, witnesses said that the guy spoke with Tippit and then the action took place. It appears as if they must have known each other and then something happened to cause the murder - a murder which seemed as if it HAD to happen. That is, Tippit HAD to be killed, not just stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.176.58 (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the article doesn't state why tippit stopped Oswald because we aren't allowed to post speculation. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But any reader would wonder how a cop with only a 10th grade education would be astute enough to spot the President's assassin from BEHIND? The article should contain this fact, Ramsquire. And it is a fact that Oswald and Tippit were moving in the same eastwardly direction, so Tippit could not possibly have seen his face until he pulled up alongside him.--jeanne (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Start a blog and you could put up all your musings. But here you need reliable sources, otherwise it's just original research. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the fact that here, on this article, the only reliable source that's accepted is the Warren Report so we never really get past Go, do we?--jeanne (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice use of a straw man. I'll respond further when you have something of substance to discuss. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty insulting to imply that someone with "only a 10th grade education" was stupid. Are you saying with a higher education Tippit could have better recognized Oswald? Tippit had two years of vocational training before he was hired as a police officer, and served as a patrol cop for eleven years before he was killed. Second point: There are numerous citations in this article that are not from the Warren Report (remember, the Report is one volume long; there are 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits), or the Warren Commission. Take a look. Third point: there is evidence that Oswald was walking west on Tenth St., and turned around and began walking the opposite direction, away from Tippit's squad car, which was traveling east, when Tippit approached him. Half of the witnesses who saw Oswald on Tenth (before he met Tippit) said he was walking west; the other half of the witnesses, who saw Oswald only as he encountered Tippit, said he was traveling or facing east. See the section Why Tippit stopped Oswald of Dale K. Myers' blog. Myers wrote an entire book about the Tippit killing. — Walloon (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my questions as to Tippit's reason for stopping Oswald show substance, if you don't mind me defending myself, Ramsquire. PS, I don' take put-downs too well. Walloon, I didn't mean to appear insulting when I mentioned Tippit's 10th grade education. Today, however, a  drop-out wouldn't be able to join the military or police force. The article clearly states that Tippit pulled up behind Oswald.--jeanne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Myers did a fine job in that book. I'm glad a got a copy before the price went to $130 on amazon! I have only one beef with him. Note that in the article he says, The shortest route, which ends with Oswald headed westbound on Tenth, would have Oswald leaving his rooming house headed south on Beckley to Davis, east to Patton, southeast on Patton to Tenth, and east on Tenth to a point near Marsalis Avenue. At that point, Oswald would double back on his route, heading back west on Tenth to the scene of the Tippit shooting at 404 E. Tenth. The total time for the trip would be about 13.5 minutes – which fits the time period available.
 * Oswald only had ten minutes tops to cover the distance. He must have gotten a ride. That would also explain why Oswald was last seen before the shooting by his landlady standing on the corner outside his roominghouse (waiting for a ride), and why no one saw him between the roominghouse and the crime scene (many saw him fleeing from the crime scene). Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * About your statement that "Oswald only had ten minutes top to cover the distance", I disagree. The outer boundaries of when Oswald arrived at his rooming house, and when Tippit could have been shot are 12:55 p.m. and 1:16 p.m. respectively. The House Select Committee on Assassinations, in its reconstruction of the event, concluded Oswald arrived at “approximately 12:55 P.M.” His housekeeper, who saw him enter and leave, was trying to watch the assassination news on TV and adjust the picture when he came in. She gave no indiction that she looked at a watch or clock to note when Oswald entered:
 * Mr. BALL. You were working with the television?
 * Mrs. ROBERTS. I was trying to clear it up to see what was happening and try to find out about President Kennedy.
 * Mr. BALL. Why did you say to this man as he came in, "You are in a hurry,"why did you say that?
 * Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, he just never has come in and he was walking unusually fast and he just hadn't been that way and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry."
 * Mr. BALL. You mean he was walking faster than he usually was?
 * Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
 * Mr. BALL. Can you tell me what time it was approximately that Oswald came in?
 * Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot — what time I wouldn't want to say…
 * The only actions Oswald is known to have taken in his closet-sized bedroom were to get his revolver and some bullets, and put on a jacket, both of which could have been accomplished in 3 minutes or less. Add a minute for Oswald to linger on the corner, where Mrs. Roberts last saw him, and it's still only about 1:00 p.m. The latest Tippit could have been shot was some time before 1:16 p.m., which is when bystander Domingo Benavides can first be heard on police radio channel recording trying to use Tippit's radio to notify police about the shooting. Subtract two minutes for Benavides to hide out in his vehicle, as he said he did to make sure the shooter was no longer in the immediate area, and it's 1:14 p.m. Oswald had 14 minutes, not "ten minutes top" to walk the distance from his rooming house, encounter Tippit, and shoot him. And re your statement "no one saw him between the roominghouse and the crime scene", three people (Jimmy Burt, William A. Smith, and William Lawrence Smith) saw Oswald on Tenth St. before he reached the crime scene. — Walloon (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 130 dollars! And I thought books were expensive here! How many pages does it have? Is it gilt-bound?--jeanne (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is out of print. That is the current market price for used copies. — Walloon (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You might say it's "guilt-bound." Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, that's a good one, Joe. --jeanne (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you read it as a put down, I was talking about discussing further once some citation or possible sourcing is put forward, not that your point had no substance. I did not intend to be insulting, and apologize if you took it that way. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you read it as a put down, I was talking about discussing further once some citation or possible sourcing is put forward, not that your point had no substance. I did not intend to be insulting, and apologize if you took it that way. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Walloon and I have had this argument before, but in case you missed it:
 * The Warren Report says: "If Oswald left the bus at 12:44 p.m. and walked directly to the terminal, he would have entered the cab at 12:47 or 12:48 p.m. If the cab ride was approximately 6 minutes, as was the reconstructed ride, he would have reached his destination at approximately 12:54 p.m. If he was discharged at Neely and Beckley and walked directly to his roominghouse, he would have arrived there about 12:59 to 1 p.m. From the 500 block of North Beckley, the walk would be a few minutes longer, but in either event he would have been in the roominghouse at about 1 p.m. This is the approximate time he entered the roominghouse, according to Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper there. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1119-A, p. 158.)
 * Earlene Roberts said "it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after," when Oswald arrived.

So if Oswald arrived earlier and walked/jogged to the crime scene:

1. The Warren Report, despite being quite meticulous on this point, was wrong.

2. Ms. Roberts was also wrong, despite giving a time estimate consistent with the Warren Report.

3. Either Ms. Roberts made up the bit about Oswald standing on the corner, or Oswald had some logical reason for doing so other than waiting for a ride.

4. 12 people witnessed the shooting or its immediate aftermath, but not one has ever been identified who saw Oswald jogging to the crime scene. (I don't count the witnesses you mention because they were all within a block of Tippit's car).

5. Our eminent friend Dale K. Myers puts the killing at precisely 1:14:30.

So I say he got a ride. Is there any good reason why the HSCA suggested that Oswald arrived at 11:55? Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The Warren Report was indeed wrong on that point. Vincent Bugliosi writes in Reclaiming History, endnotes, p. 49–50,
 * Warren Commission assistant counsel, with a stopwatch, reconstructed with [cab driver Wiliam] Whaley the route he took with Oswald, leaving the cabstand at the Greyhound bus depot around 12:48 p.m., most likely several minutes later than Oswald actually left there. I say that not only because Oswald would have probably been walking at a fast pace from the time he left the Depository, but most importantly because the most reasonable assumption is that Whaley put 12:30–12:45 p.m. on his trip ticket because he left at some time prior to 12:45 p.m., making the Warren Commission estimate of a 12:48 p.m. departure from the bus depot at least three minutes too late. It makes little sense that if Whaley left the depot at 12:48, he would record his departure time as being between 12:30 and 12:45 p.m. From the cabstand, it took five minutes and thirty seconds, by cab, to reach 700 North Beckley, where Whaley dropped Oswald off, and at a normal pace, five minutes and forty-five seconds to walk the four blocks to Oswald’s rooming house at 1026 North Beckley (6 H 434, WCT William Wayne Whaley), making Oswald’s estimated Warren Commission arrival time there around 12:59 p.m. or slightly earlier, since Whaley said that he drove “a little bit faster” (accounting, he said, for no more than a half minute) than the driver during the reconstructed run (6 H 429).


 * With a probable minimum three-minute error by the Warren Commission, the real arrival time was most likely around 12:56 p.m. or earlier. The HSCA, in its reconstruction of the event, concluded Oswald arrived at “approximately 12:55 P.M.” (HSCA Record 180-10115-10004, September 19, 1977, p.2).

2. Mrs. Roberts gave a vague time, and gave no indication that she looked at a clock or a watch. She concluded, "What time I wouldn't want to say." 3. There was a bus stop on that corner across from Oswald's rooming house, along the Beckley bus route, and a bus transfer was found on Oswald when he was arrested. My guess is that Oswald considered waiting for a bus, and decided to walk to wherever he was going instead. 4. But no one saw Oswald getting into or out of a vehicle, either. Nor did anyone see Oswald walk from where the cab let him off at the corner of 700 N. Beckley to his rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley. 5. Yes indeed, Myers does. Do you know him? — Walloon (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is never difficult for powerful organsations and the shadowy people behind them to obtain the services of a disgruntled actor such as Booth, or snarling Marxist Oswald, or a wild-eyed Princip. Most of the time they get away with it and the innocent public never suspect who really pulled the strings, but once in a while they slip up, as they did with Mehmet Ali Agca.--jeanne (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew I could count on Walloon for a rock-solid comeback. Is it conceivable that Oswald would wait at the bus stop for a moment, then change his mind and run off in the opposite direction from where a bus boarded at that stop would have taken him? Fascinatingly, yes, it's quite conceivable.
 * Such random behavior would be consistent with his earlier movements, including walking away from the SBD, then catching a bus...headed back towards the SBD. Next, making it to a cab stand, but then hesitating and not taking the first cab available. He was crazy enough to have done all the things he's been accused of, I'll give you that. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said LHO was your average guy, however, his behaviour could indicate that he was running away from people far more powerful than the police and just didn't know where to turn to. The bus journey was a perfect example of that.--jeanne (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dusting off my copy of the Warren Report, I become more convinced that Oswald could not have arrived at his rooming house before 1:00.
 * Oswald leaves the SBD at 12:33, walks seven blocks, catches a bus stuck in traffic at 12:40. Exits the bus at 12:44. Walks two blocks to the cab stand, takes the second cab available. It's 12:48. Gets dropped off 4/10th of a mile from his rooming house at 12:54. Arrives home 12:59-1:00, leaves 1:03, is standing on the corner at 1:04. Spotted within a block of the killing at 1:13.
 * Thus Oswald had only 9 minutes to make a trip that required (as described by Myers) a minimum of 13 and 1/2 minutes.
 * Bugliosi's argument is downright disingenuous. Warren's version is meticulous and is in no way contradicted by any known fact, yet Bugliosi concludes that Warren made a "probable minimum three-minute error." Why? Only because of an entirely subjective conclusion that the "reasonable assumption is that Whaley put 12:30–12:45 p.m. on his trip ticket because he left at some time prior to 12:45 p.m."
 * No one who's read Whaley's testimony would make such and assumption. (WR p.161) "Whaley testified that he did not keep an accurate time record of his trips, but recorded them by the quarter hour, and that sometimes he made his entry right after a trip while at other times he waited to record three or four trips." It is not a reasonable assumption that the log is accurate when:(1.) Whaley says that it is not accurate and (2.) he often makes numerous trips before writing them down.
 * As for the HSCA time line, the document cited does not seem to be available, and without a further explanation of their time of Oswald's arrival at home of approximately 12:55, the citation is meaningless. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so this is the timetable for his departure at 1.03 from the rooming house(how did the woman happen to be so precise in her recollection of the time he left, most people are vague as to time?), at 1.04, he's standing on the corner, and then nine minutes later he's spotted within a block of the Tippit shooting at 1.13. How many blocks away is that? Did they calculate possible delays due to traffic, or were the streets miraculously clear that day, allowing Oswald unimpeded passage? Hmm, strange how his luck ran out due to an alert shopowner. Another thing, why didn't he just blow away the witnesses after shooting Tippit? He then could have taken all their wallets and escaped from Dallas. Finally, I would add that upon leaving the TSBD, why did he board a bus, when he could have gone into a downtown department store, and blended with the shoppers? Nothing makes sense. Nothing--jeanne (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It behooved Bugliosi, as an Italian-American to insist that Oswald acted alone. Had he supported the conspiracy theory, the possibility of Mafia involvement would have raised it's head, thus the fall-out onto the Italian community would have been tremendous. Ruby had links to the Chicago mob run by Sam Giancana. The names of Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante would have been brought up. Bugliosi, therefore, had a lot to gain by maintaining that Oswald, who was of English, German, French, and Irish ancestry, acted alone.--jeanne (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oswald changing direction

 * OK, Walloon, Ramsquire, I have read Myers' blog as to Tippit's suspicions being raised when Oswald most likely switched directions. I buy that explanation. Most cops would consider that behaviour bizarre. I lived in Texas for two years, and Texas cops are normally suspicious of anything out of the ordinary, but especially on 22 November 1963. OK, that part I can accept. But why was Oswald coming apart at the seams? He had maintained a cool, calm demeanor following the assassination, so much so that he fooled Baker and Truly. I would suggest that his weird backtracking had to do with the fact that his paranoia was growing by the minute, and didn't know who was friend or foe. I never said, guys, that I believed Oswald was innocent, I said (and I will carry this conviction with me to my grave), that he was the patsy in a conspiracy so convoluted that we couldn't even begin to unravel it forty five years later. He was indeed on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD, but probably escaped down the stairs seconds before the fatal head shot. Something was wrong with his part in the plot and he wanted to get away fast. Which is why he esaped by bus. More anonymous. I often have wondered why he drew attention to himself by leaving the TSBD, when he could have brazened it out inside the building his fellow employees when the police started their questioning. He had a meeting with a mystery person in Oak Cliff and obviously took fright when he saw Tippit. Michael T. Griffith has an interesting blog which questions Tippit's motives for stopping Oswald. --jeanne (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty much on the record that Oswald COULD have been involved in a smaller scale conspiracy, but that there's no evidence of it. However, his take that he was just a patsy, rings hollow as more and more is found out. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ramsquire, the Oswalds, Agcas, Princips, are always guided by hands unseen and unknown.--jeanne (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Small
The small amount of money Oswald had on him when he was arrested suggests that he was not part of a vast conspiracy. Of course, he might have been keeping the amount small as a double bluff, to disarm suspicion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How much cash did Mehmet Ali Agca have in his wallet when he shot Pope John Paul II on behalf of the Bulgarian Secret Service? Anyway, would you walk the streets of a major city with a large amount of money in your possession?--jeanne (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The large amounts on the Watergate burglars are used as proof that they were criminals in the article on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, your comments on Oswald's lack of cash got me thinking. A man who is planning to assassinate the president knows in advance that he will have to make his escape after the deed is performed. And that same person, even if he is borderline nutty, realises that to leave town and hide out, he needs cash-and plenty of it. As you point out, Oswald had no cash on him, nor was any large amount of money found at his rooming house. How did he plan on getting away without money? He could have robbed Tippit once he killed him, in order to obtain cash but did not. He was obviously counting on help from others, whose names we'll probably never discover.--jeanne (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oswald left $170 (that's about a month's take home pay for him) and his wedding ring with Marina the night before the assassination. He was clearly expecting to go away the next day, and maybe never come back. At this point, he was carrying out a meticulous plan of some kind. After the assassination, he knew he was in trouble, but he actions showed no coherent planning at all. But consider, if his plan was to kill the President and then escape the SBD, everything has gone perfectly. After that he has no plan? It doesn't add up. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe Oswald never expected to escape the Texas School Book Depository, and was surprised he was able to walk out. — Walloon (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't add up. Nothing does. One explanation only provokes another question. Perhaps he was to meet up with someone inside the TSBD who never showed?--jeanne (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oswald seems to be lurching back and forth between having a plan and not having one a lot around here. First, he's resigned to being caught after the crime. Then, he instead executes a plan to both hide some evidence and escape the building, flying down the stairs at a break-neck pace. Then suddenly he has no plan whatsoever, walking away from the SBD, catching a bus at random, then leaving the bus to unhurriedly catch a cab ride, pick up a gun at home and then jog aimlessly around Dallas. Something's amiss here. Joegoodfriend (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe, that editor did start me thinking about Oswald's lack of money. That is definitely a clue that he was expecting aid from othe quarters. One does not escape without ready cash. Had he decided at the last minute to run off, instead of just waiting to be caught at the TSBD, he would have realsied his need for cash. He obviously had no money at his rooming house. So, when he shoots Tippit, who probably had money on him, why didn't he rob him after shooting him? I believe when he discovered his friends had abandoned him, and were to let him take the rap for the assassination, he fell apart and didn't know what to do or whereto go. Don't you remember that film No Way Out with Kevin Costner and Sean Young?--jeanne (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
The section about the rifle is titled "Mannlicher-Carcano rifle", yet the article states above "purchased a 6.5 mm caliber Carcano rifle (also improperly called Mannlicher-Carcano) by mail order".

Mannlicher should be removed, as its misleading.12.152.67.72 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oswald/Hidell purchased a 6.5 Italian Carbine (6.5mm Carcano Model 1938). The Klein's Sporting Goods ad that Oswald/Hidell ordered from listed the gun as "6.5 Italian Carbine." Common names for the Model 1938 used in the US at that time (1963) included Mannlicher-Carcano, Paraviccini Mauser and Terni (arsenal name) which tecnically speaking are misnomers. Mannlicher is not misleading, it is superfluous, and the whole parenthetical comment could be removed because there are more than one misnomer for the Model 1938 which may appear in the literature and listing one or all really adds little important. Roy F. Dunlap Ordnance Went Up Front (Samworth, 1948) was a popular reference on WWII military small arms and stated: "The basic action is the Carcano. This mechanism is a hybrid, combining both Mauser and Mannlicher features, as modified by an Italian designer named Carcano." Also Walter H.B. Smith Rifles: Volume Two of the NRA Book of Small Arms (Telegraph Press, 1948) refers to the 6.5mm Italian Rifles as Model 1891 and Model 1938. The photo of the full-sized rifle is captioned "Italian Model 1891 Paraviccini-Carcano" Paraviccini being involved in designing the Model 1891 rifle though to a lesser extent than M. Carcano. I have seen the Model 1938 listed as Terni Carbine and as Terni Rifle. To be technical, the Oswald rifle was a Series 1891 Model 1938 made at Terni arsenal in caliber 6.5mm Italian (the first Model 1938 rifles were in 7.35mm Italian). The Italians used "carbines" with 17" barrels and called the Model 1938 with 20" barrel a rifle (although in US usage 20" is still considered a carbine length barrel). Naaman Brown (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did Oswald buy a Carcano instead of a Mauser rifle
Oswald was knowledgeable about rifles and by several accounts had been passionately reading gun magazines prior to buying the Carcano rifle. By far, the most popular World War II surplus rifle at that time was the Mauser Karabiner 98k, the standard WWII rifle for German infantry. Why would Oswald choose the almost obscure Italian weapon over the German gun? The Carcano has only slight advantages in concealment and cost to the Mauser which is more powerful, accurate and about ten times as available in Texas in 1963. Its 7.92mm round is very similar to the 30.06 which is the rifle round Oswald was most familiar with from being in the Marines. Also, the 6.5mm Carcano cartridge would stick out like a sore thumb in any homicide investigation. If Oswald had bought the Carcano from a gun store I would assume it was the only thing in stock but Oswald ordered this through a mail order catalog and could have ordered either for just about the same money.--TL36 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He bought it because it was pathetically cheap. Oswald was well-known for his miserly ways. Could he really have bought a superior Mauser for the same money? I can't speak to that, but even if true, Oswlad might not have put a lot of thought into it (he was like that about some things). If it was his intention to use the rifle illegally, it would of course have been smarter to buy it anonymously. Down-to-earth thinking was not his strong point. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe, there's another way of looking at it. If Oswald wanted a trail to lead back to him, the Carcano was the obvious choice. Just like his blatant act of ordering it from a mail order catalog instead of walking into any gunshop (which, speaking as someone who has lived in Texas, are more prolific than cowboy hats!), and buying one anonymously. All his actions prior to, and after the assassination in Dealey Plaza are bizarre, and that's an understatement. No author of fiction could ever have created a protagonist such as Lee Harvey Oswald.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He could have bought a Mauser for $20 at the most which is more than was paid for the Carcano but considering the importance of a firearm to Oswald, I don't think him being "pathetically cheap" is the answer. I also believe Oswald did a lot of prior thinking about buying a rifle although he might have placed the actual order suddenly.

Since it was before the Gun Control Act of 1968, it was possible in almost every state, including California to buy a firearm in many types of stores, not just gun stores and no identification needed to be shown. However, I can see Oswald thinking it was more clandestine to purchase the rifle through a mail-order catalog. --TL36 (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, buying a firearm clandestinely instead of openly would be in character with the cloak-and- dagger drama with which Oswald choreographed his every move up to and after the JFK assassination; it also lead a trail back to one of his aliases.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange World of coincidence
First may I say the evidence against Mr Oswald is overwhelming. What seems to have provoked so many suspiscions in the mind of conspiracy theorists is the strange coincidences in Lee Oswalds life. Also the fact that Lee was either a pathological liar or half the population of Dallas was against him. When Lee was a child his Uncle was a driver for Mr Carlos Marcello (House Assassinations Investigation). When Mr Marcello (who had often clashed with Mr Robert Kennedy) was asked if he had ever met Lee he said 'no'. The House Investigators found no reason to doubt his answer. When Lee was a defector in the U.S.S.R. a pilot from the same Air Base he had been stationed at in Japan Parachuted into the Soviet Union after having his plane shot from under him; Mr Francis Garry Powers. Did Mr Powers meet Mr Oswald in Japan or later in the U.S.S.R.? we do not know. When Lee was in custody he denied knowing anything about the photographs of himself holding a rifle. Tho no notes were taken of his interrogation, we are also told he denied being a member of a rifle club, he also denied bringing a large package to work on the day Mr Kennedy was shot. Either everyone els is lying or Lee did know about the photographs and Rifle etc.Johnwrd (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The lack of reference to Judyth Vary Baker is not objective
The lack of references on the main page of Lee Harvey Oswald to the wiki page of Judyth Vary Baker is certainly perplexing. Any objective account of LHO (even on a single page) would have to at least provide need a brief summary of their alleged affair with JVB and the surrounding circumstances of their work, especially so since these have been found to be supported by a number of evidences. What makes it even more essential, is that the portrait of LHO in the light of JVB strikingly differs from the current wiki description of LHO. Schatz87 (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources supporting the claims of JVB on her wiki page. A good overview of the evidence and its implications can be found in the documentary: The History Channel: The Men Who Killed Kennedy: "The Love Affair," 2003. (as TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.8 The Love Affair, in 5 segments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY&feature=PlayList&p=0ED4E37B91ABEDC4&index=0&playnext=1) Schatz87 (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you on two points.
 * Info on Baker does not belong on the LHO article because there is no evidence of a relationship between them. Their alleged relationship could instead be discussed on the Kennedy assassination theories page.
 * You say that there are plenty of sources supporting the claims of JVB on her wiki page. Well, what she's done is list a lot of people who she claims believe her story. So what? That's not evidence. The fact that she's failed to provide a single shred of evidence of the relationship speaks for itself. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, there is evidence she indeed worked on the Reily Coffee Company in the summer of 1963 (see copy of her W2 form from the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans: http://www.judythvarybaker.com/docs/The%20Coffee%20Company.htm).
 * Second, there is at least one surviving witness who have attested LHO and JVB knew each other well: the wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister in 1963, see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2140352666545542746.
 * Thus, evidence exist and failing to mention this key love affair in Oswalds life and their work connections gives an incomplete picture of Oswald.
 * Schatz87 (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Christchurch Star
anyone has reliable reference about that? 93.86.91.184 (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Related deletion discussion
Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker may be of interest to editors here. Gamaliel (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. This is fascinating. I like the way she threatens to publically condemn wikipedia if she doesn't get her way. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

=I see gamaliel has said Baker provided no evidence and some others say this. But references show filmed live witness from New Orleans who everyone knows, testifying Baker had a sexual relationship with Oswald. See Anna Lewis http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lewis.htm I really want to stay out of this, but live witness testimony does not count in Wikipedia? Anna Lewis and also Edward Haslam http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/haslam1.htm but are not only ones on film or tape for Mrs. Baker. Mac McCullough of New Orleans is on tape. If someone has evidence they had an affair with accused assassin Oswald, and History Channel shows it, and then Mr. Haslam provides more evidence from 1972 (see his interview) then this is not fringe issue any more than biography of Carlos Bringuier is in Wikipedia really because he interacted with Oswald. As for Baker's cancer research, her young age made it remarkable and what was brought her to New Orleans while only age 19. She was first high school student ever allowed at national science writer's cancer research conference in 1961 and was guided by Nobel Prize winners in her research which is unusual age 17. There were hundreds of newspaper articles about her 1961. I am sorry Mrs. Baker got upset, but this has been a bad experience for her, be glad it not happen to you. I need her English skills to continue editing many articles so hope she will still help me. Allan M. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "If someone has evidence..then this is not fringe issue"
 * If two people or ten people go on television and claim that they saw the cow jump over the moon, that does not constitute reliable evidence that the cow jumped over the moon. That is particularly the case if those same people have radically changed their story over time and admitted to not telling the truth about it in the past.


 * "She was first high school student ever allowed at national science writer's cancer research conference in 1961 and was guided by Nobel Prize winners in her research which is unusual age 17."
 * Really? According to the 1961 article that mentions Judyth on jfkmurdersolved.com, Judyth was one of a "a group of 66 high school students (who) started work at the cancer research institute under grants supplied by the State of New York and the National Science Foundation." Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead
I removed a couple of bits from the lead but was reverted in the name of consensus. So, in the spirit of WP:BRD, I will come here to discuss my edits. I believe that my edits clear up a few basic problems with the lead: I can foresee reasonable debate on my latter two points, but the first sentence should not contradict itself; it has to be changed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is a contradiction&mdash;it states that Oswald was the assassin according to three government investigations. However, one of the cited investigations was the HSCA, which found that Oswald was one of at least two assassins.
 * Oswald was the assassin based on the vast majority modern and reliable scientific evidence. The first sentence (probably accidentally) implies that only the three government investigations conclude that he was Kennedy's assassin.
 * Why even mention the HSCA in the lead? Its conclusions derived from misinterpreted evidence and have been discredited by modern science.


 * As I recall, the HSCA concluded that Oswald was the shooter and may have had assistance from persons unknown, including possibly a grassy knoll shooter who missed. Even if you accept the HSCA's mentioning of possibilities and probabilities as conclusions, that still leaves Oswald as the one who killed JFK.
 * If you can reword it to include scientific/historical consensus, I would support that depending on the wording.
 * I agree but 1) the conspiracy set would vociferously object and 2) we can't really ignore the HSCA and the conspiracy stuff, we have to address it, even if it is all nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we ignore the conspiracism, although I have to admit I don't care if the conspiracy theorists object; we don't have to cater to them. Perhaps it would be best to mention the HSCA but put their findings in the appropriate context. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be tough to form a consensus without catering to them in some form. The HSCA stuff is further fleshed out and given context in the body of the article as is appropriate via WP:LEAD. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Recommend that the lead not be changed.
 * one of the cited investigations was the HSCA, which found that Oswald was one of at least two assassins. The word assassin is used in the context of person or persons who caused JFK's death. All the government investigations concluded that this was Oswald only.
 * Oswald was the assassin based on the vast majority modern and reliable scientific evidence. -and- (the HSCA's) conclusions derived from misinterpreted evidence and have been discredited by modern science. I don't agree with these statements. In any case, they are subjective. I could counter-point them with opposite conclusions using equally "modern science."
 * To put this as politely as possible: I agree with Gamaliel on the need for a balance of viewpoints in the article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not use the words presumed assassin in the lead, which is what the Italian media always call Oswald. They never say the assassin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

'editorial' about logical fallacy
Hi, All.

Earlier today, I added this brief paragraph to the article's "Investigations" section, just before the "Possible motives" subsection:
 * A common logical fallacy is the belief that, if the purported number of shooters is more than one, then the assassination was necessarily the result of conspiracy. That is akin to believing that the involvement of two automobiles in an accident must mean that their drivers conspired to collide.

A while later, Ice Cold Beer removed the paragraph, describing it as an "editorial".

I believe that the paragraph (1) is relevant; (2) was fairly appropriately placed; and (3), in light of how frequently the fallacy is expressed by all sorts (those who believe Oswald acted alone, those who believe Oswald was not the assassin, and those who believe that Oswald conspired with others), is prudent to include. We have all kinds of people—laymen, legislators, jurists, authors, scientists, &c.—who, when discussing this issue, utter statements to the effect of "If there was a second shooter, then, by definition, you have a conspiracy."

Wikipedia has countless prudently placed corrections of logical fallacies. It should have this one, too.

(I was going to suggest that another explication I wrote might be considered to be more in line with the tone of an encyclopedia. I added it to another Wikipedia article today; but my present search for that edit is fruitless, leading me to believe that there is some delay in the addition of certain items to "my watchlist" and/or "my contributions".)

(If you do reply, please, notify me at my own Talk page, too.)

President Lethe (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of Alleged
Alleged assassin should be used in the lead as there is reasonable doubt as to Oswald's sole culpability in the assassination, which was also the verdict the House Committee reached.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There really isn't any doubt amongst people who take the evidence seriously. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which evidence are you talking about? The 90 second time frame from the fatal shot on the 6th floor to the encounter with Officer Baker on the 2nd; lack of fingerprints on the window frame, pane and sill; the confused eye-witness reports, the ability for Oswald to be in Oak Cliff 40 minutes after the shooting in Dealey Plaza by the utilisation of public transport alone?!!!! I could go on. Even the House Committee admitted there was probably a conspiracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading the above talk page for the first time is mind-numbing. For what it is worth, it's my own view that there is indeed reasonable doubt about LHO, and the word alleged in the lede/intro is not out of line here, from what I think I understand about how Wikipedia 'should' work.  However, I'm also aware that I have a lot to learn about the politics of Wikipedia.
 * It appears to me that this article is on the very front lines of a central ongoing struggle within the Wikipedia community itself. It also appears that adding 'alleged' in the LHO lede will not be done easily, as witnessed by the firm stand of Senior Editor and admin Gamaliel, who states his position on this article clearly above in the talk page as well as on his personal page. I also note that Ice Cold Beer is an admin; his stand appears uncompromising. What is evolving here, possibly over a period of years, is part of an ongoing discussion over what the definition of reliably sourced is.
 * One point I will make at the moment is that having visited Dealey Plaza and the Texas Book Depository, I noticed the plaque mounted outside on the building's wall does use the word 'allegedly' in the context we are discussing. The Wikipedia photo from the building's Wikipedia article backs this up; The wiki-link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BookDepositoryPlaque.jpg
 * This plaque was emplaced by the Texas Historical Commission on the site. Personally, I find that compelling in making a case.  I would submit that if this word and context is good enough for the state of Texas, it is reasonable to use it in the article's lede. My cordial best wishes to all.   Jusdafax (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well put, Jusdafax.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also have visited Dealey Plaza and the Sixth Floor museum. The staff inside the museum take the Oswald acted alone POV. Almost all of the visitors I happened to overhear talking did not.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the rarely-cited WP:PLAQUE policy. I've definitely changed my stance now. Well done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is my favorite talk page comment ever. Gamaliel (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit I am curious. Since you are an admin, should we take your comment as your interpretation of WP:Civility? I ask as a student of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jusda fax  06:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You should take it as a snarky comment reminding you to cite actual Wikipedia policies and not ones that you've made up to push conspiracist nonsense. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There really isn't any doubt amongst people who take the evidence seriously.
 * This, of course, is not true. Many serious historians have researched and written about the fact that a strong case can be made that Oswald was not on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. Among these are Anthony Summers, Sylvia Meagher, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and others I could name. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of them are recognized as a serious historian outside the conspiracy community. Do any of them have credentials as scholars of history?  Are they recognized by historians for their contributions?  Have they done any serious historical work outside of events related to the assassination? Gamaliel (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The version of the article we have now is fine. --John (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

None of them are recognized as a serious historian outside the conspiracy community.

This is, of course, not true.

Senator Richard S. Schweiker wrote that “Sylvia Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact was instrumental in finally causing a committee of Congress—with full subpoena power, access to classified documents, and a working knowledge of the nuances of the FBI and CIA—to take a second official look at what happened in Dallas November 22, 1963.” The FBI once stated that, “No one knows more about the assassination of President Kennedy than Harold Weisberg.” Anthony Summers is the author of scholarly works on Richard Nixon, Frank Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe, and several other subjects. Mark Lane successfully argued the defense of a publication sued by Howard Hunt for suggesting his involvement in the assassination.

Have you read any of these books? Do you have specific criticism to offer against the authors? If not, what is your basis for dismissing them as cranks and/or crackpots? These books examine the evidence and point out the flaws in the reasoning of the Warren Commission. They are at least as valid as the works of Posner and Bugliosi, whose work is highly touted by the pro-Warren crowd, despite the fact that they’re just a couple lawyers re-arguing the pro-Warren case. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We could discuss the conspiracy books I've read or the backgrounds of these authors, ranging from the amateur historian to the professional charlatan, but that's not the issue. I'm afraid the judgments of the FBI or a Miami jury or a Senator aren't the kind we use to evaluate sources.  Have they convinced other serious professional and academic historians that their work is worthy of their respect and are they representative of mainstream academic thinking?  Unless they have, we shouldn't be using their work as sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ''When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”


 * ''“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”


 * “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – - that’s all.” Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass


 * I honestly don't think it matters to Gamaliel and Ice Cold Beer (and a few others) what the truth is. (If this is a misjudgement, my apologies.) In the past few days I've studied the issue of pages being "guarded" by admins or Senior Editors with a lot of juice. Short version, it's my belief that they don't care what you say, and don't have to... This is a sport, and the fix is in. Cheers,  Jusda  fax  20:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that your keen interest in the civility policy has disappeared. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite the contrary. Permission to speak freely... Here's how I see it. The "frame" you use in your advocacy against those who do not believe as you do is the issue I raise with the Lewis Carroll quote. Seems to me that you and ICBeer strongly feel that anyone who does not believe absolutely and without question that LHO killed JFK is a "conspiracy" nutcase. Use of words like "amateur" "serious" and "mainstream" are designed by their very nature to create a worldview that conforms to your own, and enable use of sources you approve. To quote (if I may) from your user page:


 * "What I'm proudest of and spent more time working on than anything else are my contributions to Lee Harvey Oswald. The Oswald entry is even mentioned in a newspaper article (broken link) on wikipedia. If you want to witness insanity firsthand, try monitoring these articles for conspiracy nonsense... " (and you provide a link to a list of articles about JFK.)


 * I grant you, of course, that "conspiracy nonsense" exits. But I feel lumping anyone who even has some doubts about the so-called "mainstream" view of the JFK assassination, in with people who believe he was killed by space aliens, etc. does all of us and Wikipedia itself a disservice. Again, I believe use of the word "allegedly" in the context of LHO/JFK, based on the sincere doubts that exist for many concerned people, is reasonable.  To you, the case is closed.  This is the nub of the current disagreement about editing this article, along with debating the interpretation of reliably sourced and who is to be the final word on it.


 * CONCLUSION: The wording we have now in the intro may be the closest we can come to compromise. (Unfortunately we now have two conversations going. I will discuss further below, thanks.) Jusda  fax  22:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On authors of published research suggesting a conspiracy: are they representative of mainstream academic thinking?
 * YES.
 * David Scheim: PhD, MIT. Edward Epstein, PhD, Harvard. Gerald McKnight, Professor, Hood College. Joan Mellen, Professor, Temple University. Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, participated in HSCA. David Wrone, Professor, U. of Wisconsin. Walt Brown, PhD, former Justice Department employee. John Newman, Professor, University of Maryland. Henry Hurt, journalist, Rockefeller Foundation. Gaeton Fonzi, Federal investigator for the HSCA. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dr. Peter Duesberg is a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He believes the HIV virus does not cause AIDS.  He is a credentialed academic but his view does not represent the mainstream of academic, scientific thought on the issue of HIV and AIDS. The relevant articles should reflect the mainstream scientific view and not Duesberg's minority viewpoint.
 * Dr. James Fetzer is professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He believes that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. He has a PhD in history but his view does not represent the mainstream of historical thought on the 9/11 attacks. The relevant articles should reflect the mainstream historical viewpoint and not Fetzer's viewpoint.
 * Do you see what I'm getting at now? A few academics, a number of them in non-relevant fields  like mathematics, do not necessarily represent the mainstream historical viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is admin status being brought up so frequently in this section? Once we choose to involve ourselves in this article we give up our privilege of using the tools. Our admin status is completely, 100% irrelevant. Playing the David vs. Goliath card is pathetic and a distraction from the topic at hand. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I don't agree, and notice you don't trouble to address the issues I raised, and instead use terms like "irrelevant" and "pathetic", but I'll drop it for now.


 * Re: Joe's list - well done. Part of the trouble with this topic is the vast amount of literature there is out there. Perhaps we could get a list of sources we all agree on, and edit from there? Should be an interesting discussion, to say the least.   Jusda  fax  05:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that every time I answer this challenge regarding sources, the opposition then raises the bar and asks me to do it over again. Having cleared the "doubt amongst people who take the evidence seriously"’ bar and the "credentials as scholars of history" bar and the "representative of mainstream academic(s)" bar, now I have to clear the "mainstream historical viewpoint" bar.

Well we know what the mainstream historical viewpoint is among the American public. This has been surveyed many times, and the public believes that there was a conspiracy. Ah, but what about the viewpoint among credentialed academics alone?

Believe you me, I wish someone would poll historians on the assassination as well as a lot of other controversial subjects. I have been involved in an argument for more than two years on the discussion page of the wiki article on Alger Hiss as to whether “most” academics believe that Hiss was a spy.

"The relevant articles should reflect the mainstream historical viewpoint and not Fetzer's viewpoint. Do you see what I'm getting at now?"

No, I don’t see what you’re getting at. As I’ve said before, the authors I’ve mentioned are serious historians who represent mainstream institutions and whose original research and thorough analysis has been published by major publishing houses and universities and favorably reviewed by other historians. You can conceivably dismiss them as sources if you demonstrate specific flaws in their methods, treatment of facts and/or conclusions, but NOT just on differences of opinion. I thought wikipedia was supposed to fairly represent both sides of an argument, not just the majority opinion (which I don’t concede necessarily favors the "no conspiracy" conclusion in the first place). On a different argument, I DO concede that this article and the JFK Assassination article should be almost entirely reflective of the official conclusions on the assassination, while pro-conspiracy ideas belong on the Assassination Theories page.

P.S.: Boy howdy is Fetzer a loony. And I can name several JFK conspiracy theories from reputable publishers that are way-crazier than even Fetzer. Let me know if you’d like to hear about “The Coca-Cola Theory” or Norman Mailer’s “coincidental second gunman” theory. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We made this point when RPJ wanted to insert poll data into the introduction of the article. The American public's viewpoint is irrelevant to Wikipedia.  We don't poll people regarding ghosts, AIDS, 9/11, creationism, global warming, etc, and we shouldn't do so here.  We do represent these minority viewpoints where appropriate, but not in the main article and not as a legitimate viewpoint.  If we put Mark Lane in here, we'd have to put Duesberg in the AIDS article and Fetzer in the 9/11 article.  I'm sorry, but there may be a few historians who advocate conspiracy, just as there are a few historians and scientists who advocate the alternative theories I just mentioned, mainstream academic historians as a whole do not advocate conspiracy and such viewpoints are not embraced by the academy as a legitimate viewpoint.  Gamaliel (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gam, you stun me.
 * "we'd have to put Duesberg in the AIDS article"
 * From the wikipedia article on AIDS: "A small number of activists question the connection between HIV and AIDS," Citation: Duesberg PH (1988). "HIV is not the cause of AIDS". Science 241.
 * "The American public's viewpoint is irrelevant to Wikipedia."
 * From the wikipedia article on Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories: "Polls since 1966 have consistently reflected the public's belief that Kennedy was murdered as the result of a conspiracy. For example, according to a 2003 ABC poll, "seven in 10 Americans think the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the result of a plot, not the act of a lone killer — and a bare majority thinks that plot included a second shooter in Dealey Plaza.""
 * Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for not being precise. I don't advocate eradicating all mention of conspiracy from wikipedia and I never have. (My AFD votes on a number of conspiracy oriented articles should prove that.)  Conspiracy is a phenomenon that should be documented. I don't advocate the deletion of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and I think conspiracies should be documented there, definitely.  You may recall that I wrote a version of the introduction which mentioned conspiracy theories and linked to the KACT article. What I am opposed to is using conspiracy sources in the same manner you would mainstream sources, as documentation of facts and mainstream viewpoints.  For example, some conspiracists have accused William Greer of participating in the conspiracy, such as David Lifton in his nutty book about body switching.  I participated in an editing conflict in which an anon advocated using Lifton's source in the Greer article, but this was opposed as WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.  I would, however, not be opposed to Lifton's theory being documented at the KACT article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I feel much better! The above comment is a good summary on handling the issues in question. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edits to intro by Ramsquire
I believe Ramsquire has found a good middle path with the current edit to the intro. I also like the comment with his edit: "changed intro to make it more fact based."

That, in my belief, is exactly correct. I also believe that putting as absolute fact in the opening sentence that LHO is the assassin of JFK is a misuse of Wikipedia. The way it reads now is a fact: Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to three United States government investigations, the assassin of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who was fatally shot on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas.

The current revision, I strongly feel, reflects the essence of Wikipedia's core beliefs. This fact of this edit becomes more important than the article itself, I feel.

I believe, frankly, that those who argue for the former POV wording argue from a pre-set agenda. I call on them to admit to the basic justice of this edit, which has implications for Wikipedia that reach far beyond this article.

Bottom line: I do not know that Oswald acted alone or with others, nor do I know that he did or did not pull the trigger on Nov. 22, 1963. I do know, as Ramsquire states, that U.S. Government investigations say he did. That is a fact. Therefore the edit improves the article, and is NPOV. That, in my view, is crucial to Wikipedia. Nothing else is as important to this long-standing issue.

No one can dispute the truth of the opening sentence in Ramsquire's edit. Many would dispute the previous version. Jusda fax  17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's much better now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And so the opening sentence returns to the way it was for years until this Aug 28 IP edit with no edit summary -- except for the placement of the ref. --JimWae (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was unaware of that. Aditionally, the no edit summary is of interest. I have yet to pour through the edit history here, but assuming that's the case, I contend those concerned with this matter remain involved by putting this page on their watchlist, refreshing often, and that the Ramsquire edit remain as established Wikipedia material on this high-profile article. I believe that the issue should be discussed here further, prior to making edits that state as uncontrovertable fact that LHO killed JFK.  I also find the involvement of admins in this issue of interest, worthy in my view of further discussion in itself.  Jusda  fax  19:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I was unaware of this discussion when I made the edit. But yeah, I just restored what was there previously, not a big deal.  As for years of consensus being undone in a flash... welcome to Wikipedia. ;) Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow me to thank you for your edit, which I see is more of a revert. Years of consensus undone in a flash is one thing (and, I now see, by an IP named, one-time editor!) but it being backed by powerful admins is another. I would especially like to hear from those involved in the discussion above. Jusda  fax  20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Powerful admins", eh? That's news to me.  I don't have any strings to pull, and I've never used my admin powers on this article.  If you think I'm a pernicious influence, you are welcome exercise the exact same powers I do here: editing and talk page discussion.  Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If I have misjudged you, Gamaliel, my sincere apologies. From what I understand of wikipedia policy, you could have blocked or even banned me already. Debating admins is a new experience for me, and one I do not seek.

To quote George Orwell, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." By this I mean that many here may experience a chilling effect with the status quo power structure in editing LHO's article. Your seeming backup of ICBeer's self-admitted "snarky" comment in the section above appears to make borderline incivility among admins toward non-admins an issue of concern in the context of what can be said and how it can be said.

Now, THAT being said, I am a fan of your work elsewhere. After a recent confrontation, it is my perhaps erroneous understanding that I should not bring discussion from other talk pages onto this one, so I will not name the page. But rest assured I don't see you as a "pernicious influence"... but as someone I have a very deep disagreement with around a few issues here. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  23:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. I want to reiterate that you don't have to worry about the ban hammer provided you stay within the bounds of civility required of all of us.  Now we have a difference of opinion regarding snarky, lighthearted comments like ICB's.  I think such humorous comments can be useful to lighten the mood and make points in a direct manner.  Your opinion may differ, and that is the danger of humor at times.  I think it is clear, however, that comments accusing other editors of not caring about the truth are out of bounds and obviously uncivil.  Not that I bear a grudge or anything like that, I've heard much worse on Wikipedia.


 * You should know that some of the editors here have been the victims of an onslaught of incivility. Until he was banned, a user named RPJ unleashed a near-daily wave of insults directed at us.  There are plenty of drive by crazies who thrown in a text dump of "conspiracy nonsens" and insult when it gets reverted, the people like the JV Baker advocates who insult you because their personal conspiracy theory isn't in the article and might lower sales of their book, and the people who just want to talk and talk about their pet theory, like one editor on this page who not so long ago claimed a second shooter was hiding behind a road sign in plain view of hundreds and Zapruder's camera.  So we get tired, we make jokes, and we call the people who have insulted us crazies and nuts.  Does that mean we wish to vilify all who disagree?  Does that mean we're insulting you personally because you disagree? No. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will I never live that comment down?! I am the editor who made the comment about the man behind the Stemmons Freeway sign; however I did not explain clearly what I had meant about the shooter possibly having been behind the sign. I didn't mean directly behind it, I had meant that he might have been far back up the incline on the grassy knoll in the shadows of the trees, with the sign directly in front of him. I stood in that precise spot and there was a straight trajectory to the X in the street.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay that makes a lot more sense, he would have been behind Zapruder and the pergola at least, but any shooter anywhere on the knoll, even behind the fence, would have been visible to a number of people. Gamaliel (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but everyone's eyes were on the motorcade.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * View of the stockade fence from where Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman were standing. Judge for yourself whether Zapruder and Sitzman would not have noticed someone standing behind that fence and firing a rifle. Or whether an assassin would fire from there with Zapruder and Sitzman standing right nearby looking down at him, and Lee Bowers in the rail yard tower with an unobstructed view also looking down at the back of the fence. — Walloon (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe the shooter was behind the fence; he could have been on the knoll in the shadow of the tree where I myself stood, and he would have had an unobstructed view of the JFK Lincoln Continental as it approached. Furthermore, it's possible the gun could have been concealed inside something else like a camera. I watched a film the other night, and (it was based on a true story which occurred in the 1960s), an assassin posing as a photographer killed a man with the gun concealed inside an ordinary-looking box camera.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Call for consensus on sources
Let's cut to the nub. As I see it, the major issue is what sources a reasonably firm majority of editors can agree on. Let's talk this over, because otherwise this page faces an ongoing low-grade edit war, with little hope of making overall improvements. If this page could someday make GA or FA status, it would be an outstanding achievement for Wikipedia as a whole... a symbol of the ability of the entire project to move forward. I do not pretend this will be easy, indeed, my proposal may cause more turmoil than lasting progress. But I see it as the only constructive way to go from here, unless someone has a better idea. Jusda fax  19:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Childhood
The current section "Childhood" bothers to include exact dates of birth and death and marriage for Oswald's parents, when none of that is really necessary. It just clutters up the paragraph with data for data's sake. There are a thousand pieces of data about Oswald's life and family; we can't include them all. I'd like to revise it to include just the years, if nobody objects. — Walloon (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tried and Convicted upon arrest
The police and media tried and convicted Oswald upon his arrest, so eager were they to have found Kennedy's assassin. The side-show atmosphere inside the station, the parading of Oswald before photographers and journalists who fired at him a barrage of dumb questions: "Did you shoot the president?", etc. Oswald should have been protected from the moment of his arrest, likewise during the transfer. The police incompetence coupled with the animalistic avidity of the journalists and photographers made it possible for any mentally-unbalanced person such as Ruby to grab a gun and avenge JFK before Oswald was even allowed to be defended before a court of his peers. During the transfer, the police should have shielded Oswald, instead they were exposing him to accomodate the photographers; indeed flashbulbs went off the instant Ruby stepped forward and murdered Oswald. The article should asign some of the blame to the journalists for the death of Oswald, as they were indirectly responsible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want to add something to the article? Otherwise, it appears that you're using this section as a WP:FORUM. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember that the police were chasing the last disaster. The president had been protected as well as possible from close-range pistol assassination (the mode in the previous three presidential assassinations) but then JFK was killed by a long-distance rifle sniper. The police figured this was the way of the future and had Oswald all fitted out with an amoured car to protect him from that, and with enough cops to protect him from "Texas justice" (a vigillante hanging mob, which the police chief actually mentions). Everybody, in their attempts to adapt, forgot that the "old" assassination methods still could work. In fact, ONLY somebody like a Ruby could have gotten through. S  B Harris 07:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Backyard photograph analysis becoming controversial
I didn't think that the Farid analysis was going to be as controversial as is has become, so I added some text and a link to provide an opposing view to Farid's analysis. I don't know how big this controversy is going to get but if you are heavily invested in the Oswald article this might be a section to watch.grifterlake (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A detailed discussion of questions on the authenticity of the photographs is more appropriate to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. It's my view that since the photos in question are of the subject of the article, therefore this is a fine and proper place to discuss them and their place in the article, rather than relegate that discussion elsewhere. Joe, you advocate defacto censorship, I feel. Jusda  fax  21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, conspiracy theorists take issue with every detail of the Kennedy assassination. To include each of their challenges would overwhelm the text. Gamaliel (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you try to lump this in with 'Martians killed JFK' and get away with it then Wikipedia as a whole is in trouble. Just yesterday I heard respected writer and national talk-show host Thom Hartmann talk about his new book on the JFK assassination, which I found had startling views.  Now, Hartmann may be defined by some as 'progressive' or 'liberal', but regardless of what label you hang on him, he's no nut case but is mainstream by my definition.  Once you put up walls about what can and can't be mentioned on a Wikipedia talk page you have to tread pretty carefully, in my view.  I'm quite serious about finding the idea of cutting off reasonable discussion here to be contrary to the spirit on which Wikipedia is based.  I suspect I'm not alone.  The discussion page should be used for what is meant for, and acts as a kind of safety valve.  I urgently suggest it not be plugged up.  Jusda  fax  22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty clear I was speaking about the article. You can talk about whatever you want here on the talk page, within the limits of WP talk page policy.  Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool. Based on Joe's comment, then yours, I misunderstood. Nevertheless, as I say, ground breaking info is coming out at this point in time. Hartmann's book and views will be featured on the History Channel, special this weekend. For those with a stake in this issue in general and this article in particular, it will be of interest no matter what you think actually happened on that terrible day in Dallas. Best wishes,  Jusda  fax  01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up about the History Channel. I'll check it out. Gamaliel (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The link: http://www.legacyofsecrecy.com/ and the air date - of course - is Sunday, Nov. 22, in the evening (check local listings.) I have not read the book, which is said to be based on the U.S. Government's own archives. Please understand me whan I assert that I do not want to believe any of this, for my own comfort in my daily life.  I will, however, keep an open mind. UPDATE: I see I am mistaken, it is on the DISCOVERY Channel, not the History.  Jusda  fax  02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in the text?
Is there a mistake in the text or is it just something I don't understand? The article states: "Four cartridge cases were found at the scene by eyewitnesses. It was the unanimous testimony of expert witnesses before the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations that these used cartridge cases were fired from the revolver in Oswald's possession to the exclusion of all other weapons"

Now, to the best of my knowledge revolvers do not eject a cartridge case when firing. Why were these found at the scene? If it was determined that Oswald ejected them manually for some reason it might be useful to include that info here, it's quite puzzling otherwise.

74.59.117.9 (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. The shooting of Tibbit provokes many questions that cannot be answered or explained.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * IIRC, he was seen by a witness emptying his revolver and adding fresh ammo as he fled. Gamaliel (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct, Gamaliel. This bit of info was in the article before, not sure when or why it was removed. Fortunately this question is easily answered.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's explained in the JD Tippit article. Here Walloon and I went to all that trouble to write that article and you didn't read it. ;) Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew I had seen it on the WP. I guess I was confusing articles. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now :) Thanks all for pointing me to the more complete info. Fascinating piece of history with lots of questions for sure. 74.59.117.9 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most television documentaries and journalists don't bother much with the particulars surrounding the JD Tippit shooting; however, Oswald's actions in Oak Cliff were even more bizarre and baffling than at the TSBD.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oswald, Communist
User:FencesandWindows has removed the tag that Oswald was an American communist, which somebody else placed. I think it's fair to say he was. He was converted at 16 from reading a pamphlet about the Rosenberg execution, and spent the rest of his life reading communist literature. He defected to the USSR! Back at home (disillusioned with the USSR not with communism) he read Krocodil and subscribed to Communist newsletters. He told de Mohrenschildt he was Communist and the latter (with much more experience) could only shake his head at O.'s lack of realism. Finally, Oswald focuses on Cuba as the last socialist paradise, after the Cuban Missle crisis (October 1962). He organized a Fair Play for Cuba Committee (consisting of just himself, typically) and got into a fight with ex-Cubans. He went on the radio, he passed out tracts. He tried to emigrate to Cuba at the very end of his life, and nearly succeeded (too bad he didn't). Not long after being fired from his only good job, he used his new rifle to take a shot at an anti-Cuban general. I have little doubt (though can't prove it) that his assassination of JFK (who had admitted the Bay of Pigs and had done much blustering during the missle crisis) was meant to be a blow on behalf of Cuba, which he figured might be a safe haven. I suspect (can't prove) he was headed to Mexico (where'd just been to try to get to Cuba) and a flight to Cuba, when apprehended. Communist? Hell, yes. S B Harris 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume you have no idea what Krokodil was? A satirical weekly magazine with mostly cartoons (usually pretty tame) criticizing various aspects of Soviet life. Hardly evidence of ideological purity. In any case, as even you say, he was pretty muddle-headed. I'd call him more disturbed (crazy?) then a Communist. What I find most bizarre about his life is the whole trip to the USSR. Why was he accepted there? Why was he allowed to go back to the US? Why did the US take him back? Why weren't there any US legal consequences of his defection? My only theory is that neither side took him seriously at all. kovesp (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdated?
Is this information still current?

Oswald obtained knowledge of the U-2 spy planes which he may have passed over to the Soviets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.48.162 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Police Chief Curry's comments
I fail to see how the opinions of Police Chief Jesse Curry are deemed as "random quotes", when they were said by the man who legally had charge of the prisoner Lee Harvey Oswald, and in whose jurisdiction the assassination took place! Clearly the blatant removal of Curry's comments can be construed as an attempt to steer this article into the non-neutral POV camp where anything added that does not condemn Oswald as the lone assassin is instead deemed as pro-conspiracy nonsense. I think Curry's comments should be put back into the article. If editors are so certain of the infallability of the Warren Report, surely the " random" quotes made by Police Chief Curry shouldn't undermine their faith in the Commission's findings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If some context can be provided, then it will no longer be a random quote. Such as the obvious question of why Curry's investigation fingered this "innocent" person. It is a favorite tactic of conspiracies of all types (creationists, global warming "skeptics", etc.) to pull quotes out of context. If this is really a smoking gun, then let's see the context. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I should also add that in this article we don't generally report the opinions of the many, many, many participants in Oswald's life and the assassination. If you'd like to start a section about opinions on his guilt, make sure you include the many people, including his wife and brother, who are convinced that he was the assassin. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that his wife and brother believed in Oswald's guilt has no bearing on the opinions made by Police Chief Curry, in whose jurisdiction the assassination was carried out and into whose keeping Oswald was placed. I would hardly consider the Chief of the Dallas police a mere "participant" in the life of Oswald and the JFK assassination. Jesse Curry was legally in charge of the investigation into the crime carried out that day in Dallas because in 1963 it was not a federal crime to assassinate the president of the United States of America. As a result his opinions do count, even if they happen to upset the apple cart carefully prepared by the Warren Commission.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I mention the opinions of others because I see the only reason to single out Curry is because the quote serves to push an agenda. If you want the quote in, then provide the context.  Or would that upset your apple cart?  Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Restore Curry's opinons. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




 * Then you need another source. Anything else is your own original research. The article reports on what the Warren Commission said, you can't report on what you say. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the relevant quote from the source used at present The arresting officers found a forged selective service card with a picture of Oswald and the name "Alek J. Hidell" in Oswald's billfold.681 On November 22 and 23, Oswald refused to tell Fritz why this card was in his possession,682 or to answer any questions concerning the card.683 On Sunday morning, November 24, Oswald denied that he knew A. J. Hidell. Captain Fritz produced the selective service card bearing the name "Alek J. Hidell." Oswald became angry and said, "Now, I've told you all I'm going to tell you about that card in my billfolds--you have the card yourself and you know as much about it as I do. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, if you continue this obstructive and contentious editing, not only will I submit this problem to arbitration, but in the process I will ask that your account be investigated as the sockpuppet of a probable banned user, since you are clearly no newcommer to WP, and you are making quite a mess here, which suggests that you have made a similar mess here before, and been booted for it. Have you not? S B Harris 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not obstructive or contentious to suggest that an edit should reflect the source used to support it. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oswald's Odd Choice of Rifle
Oswald was knowledgeable about rifles and by several accounts had been passionately reading gun magazines prior to buying the 6.5mm Carcano rifle. By far, the most popular World War II surplus rifle at that time was the Mauser Karabiner 98k, the standard WWII rifle for German infantry. Its 7.92mm round is very similar to the 30.06 which is the rifle round Oswald was most familiar with from being in the Marines. Also, the 6.5mm Carcano cartridge would stick out like a sore thumb in any homicide investigation. It seems inexplicable that Oswald would choose this almost obscure Italian weapon.TL36 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was on sale, very cheap, with a cutout ad from the American Rifleman. Oswald was relatively poor, although in March, 1963 he was probably working at the best job of his life, and had been for some time (he was due to be fired the next month). Had he been paid by some conspiracy, he'd have had enough money for anything he wanted. When Oswald bought the rifle, I doubt he intended to assassinate anybody with it, much less JFK. He liked guns-- he'd accidently fired a pistol he wasn's supposed to have, while in the marines, remember. A firearm made him feel less powerless, and in Texas it wasn't all that odd for people to be gun owners and collectors. My guess is that Oswald's mood in gun ownership was rather playful, as you see on the backyard photos, one of which he even sent to de Mohrenschildt (not an assassin's act). What really set Oswald off at the end, I think, was being fired in April. He attempted assassination of Walker only a few days later-- about as soon as he could, after casing his house over a weekend. Clearly, he was nuts and a walking timebomb from that point on, fixated on getting to Cuba, and angry at anyone who wasn't a Cuban Communist. Then JFK, who had his own many problems with Cuba, decided to take a motorcade route right under the window of the place Oswald was working. He could not have known that would happen when he started there. But when he heard, it must have seemed like destiny. Revenge on the world for all his problems. And there was always Cuba, as a dream of where to escape to. S  B Harris 03:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing Oswald did or said can be readily explained. He is as much an enigma today as he was in 1963, and as he will go on to be for future scholars and historians. There are many strange quirks to the man's actions, from his choice of rifle to his leaving it behind the stack of boxes near the stairwell after the shooting. His escape by city bus cannot be comprehended nor his hiding out inside a place such a movie theatre. The responses he gave to journalists after his arrest remain baffling to us despite numerous viewings on television and YouTube. We as editors can ascribe all different types of motives for why he did this and why he said that; however, the fact remains that we do not know and probably never will because Jack Ruby silenced him forever.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These are not great mysteries. What is Oswald going to do-- attempt to carry the rifle out of the book depository? Oswald didn't drive-- if he wanted to go anywhere he had to walk, get a lift, or take bus or taxi, but he'd left most of his money for Marina, so taxi was the last choice. And Oswald didn't have a cell phone. Waiting for a bus with little time to spare, I think he probably would have taken a taxi after leaving his appartment after the assassination, but how was he to get one? In retrospect he should have had the taxi tht took him home, wait. But he didn't think to do it, expecting to take a bus (which he had to take anyway to get to Mexico).  S  B Harris 18:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The bit about Oswald not having had a cell phone surprises me, and is indeed another mystery. I really would have thought he would have brought one with him to work that morning just so he could call Marina at 12.25 and inform her he was going to shoot the president. And yes, it was completely in line with Oswald's character to burst out of the building firing his Carcano just like Billy the Kid or the Rifleman.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think cell phones were available in 1963 in the US, and if they were they were certainly out of Oswald's price range. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They were available, but just not as common as they are today. The actual fact was he had a Motorola RAZR on him but his call plan had expired the month before, so no help to him. --Breshkovsky (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This talk about cell phones is hogwash. It was established by the Warren Commission (cf. Report, Vol. 17, pp. 672-843) that Oswald was issued with a 12-RP Infantry HF Radio (with both 5-SG2 and 12-R components, more details here: 12-RP Details) by his handlers. He was under strict orders to keep it with him at all times. However this was a WW2 surplus Red Army radio, weighed over 14 kilograms with batteries and needed a rather large knapsack to carry. It is perhaps understandable that he left it at home from time to time; had he survived the mission, he would have, in all likelihood, been subject to an investigation, demotion and possibly even a fine for violating regulations. The radio was found buried in the back yard of his house, carefully wrapped in oil-skin, batteries fully charged. This was suppressed from the media, as the US military wanted to study it for possible incorporation of its features&mdash;decades ahead of anything the US had at the time&mdash;in it's own equipment designs.--kovesp (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Capture
Under "Capture", the passage has become ungrammatical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.83 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Fixed now. EEng (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

{{hidden|Extensive primary material, supplied by Ruidoso, on certain incidents related to Oswald, along with scattered discussion with other editors re their relevance to the article|

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

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

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

Young wife's death

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

It would last just over a month.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Am I correct that there was a mock trial of Oswald, in which Vincent Bugliosi argued for the prosecution, and Gerry Spence for the defense? 2tuntony (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to pose open questions about the subject of the article, but rather to discuss how to make the article better. If you know of such a mock trial and have a reference for it, you might want to add it somewhere, but let me say in advance that I think things are much cleaner if we can move as much stuff about the assassination, conspiracy theories, and so on to the JFK Assassination and JFK Assass. Conspiracy Theories articles, to centralize presentation there.  This article works best, in my opinion, when it sticks to the facts of LHO's life other than the complex assassination questions.  See the discussion re the lead held recently. EEng (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't so much attempting to pose an open question, as I was a question of whether or not this would belong in the article. I do think that the mock trial(s) cover an important topic that would certailny have been addressed had Oswald lived, and therefore, at least merit mention.2tuntony (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead (again)
This morning the end of the lead read:
 * In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, a conclusion also reached by prior investigations carried out by the FBI and Dallas Police.

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

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


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

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

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

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


 * EEng, I started this round of edits on 10 July. I just found that I could discuss my change to the opener of the article here. I was satisfied with the edit you made to my edit as it was a compromise. I state a brief reason for each of my edits and the fact that they all came from existing language in other relevant wikipedia articles. When the change you made was changed back to the original text, leaving a reader with no knowledge of the subject with the impression that the three 1963-1964 investigations had settled the matter that Oswald was a guilty, lone gunman, the problem came back to square one.
 * It simply is not an accurate impression for someone new to the subject to take away after reading the first three paragraphs of the article. If only the impression that Oswald was and still is determined by government investigators to be a guilty gunman who acted alone, then other wikipedia pages related to the assassination of president John F. Kennedy should cpmvey that this is still the official government conclusion....the last word. But, it isn't, is it? (ruidoso)
 * Ruidoso (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say that I like EEng's revised one. The problem is that we've got two different equally powerful investigations potentially contradicting each other: the Warren Commission, appointed by Pres. Johnson, and the House Select Committee. It should also be noted that the part in this article which says that the House investigation found the Warren Commission's conclusion severely flawed lacks any citation whatsoever. The opening as it stands right now leads the reader to believe that there was indeed a conspiracy when it's never actually been proven, and the articles on the Warren Commission and the actual Assassination then would further confuse the reader. I like EEng's new one because it talks about the possibility of a conspiracy, and the continuing controversy, but doesn't actually slant one way or the the other.
 * --Flaming Goldfish (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to three government investigations, assassin of President of the United States John F. Kennedy, who was fatally shot in the gunman who shot and killed President of the United States John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. 

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

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

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

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


 * EEng's patient, diplomatic copy editing of the article has greatly improved it and - since he's managed to get through the whole thing without arousing any dispute - I'd back his judgement every time. Setting aside his overall contribution, the last sentence of the lead and the opening suggested above seem clear, well justified, uncontroversial and a big improvement on the confusion created by 10th July's edits.
 * Alistair Stevenson (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


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


 * To me the current lead is similar to the one we (I was a part of those discussions many moons ago) hashed out in the past. It is factual, complies with NPOV, and does not violate Undue by mentioning any specific theory.  I actually agree with you about not having an emphasis on conspiracy in this article for exactly the reasons you state.  But it's been my experience that failing to do so would likely lead to accusations of whitewashing, bias, etc.  I know that you can't do an encyclopedia by simply heading off arguments or seeking to placate all sides.  However, in this case, where the sentence does provide context for other items already present in the article, I think it's a necessary and harmless concession, especially since it does not seek to define any one theory or controversy.
 * Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * I would add "to some" after the semicolon and make the last four words "a subject of debate", but I wouldn't feel strongly enough about it to edit what you've suggested. No form of words can reflect neutrally the irreconcilable positions that exist about LHO. In any case, whatever's agreed upon will change again, and rightly so.
 * Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * These are all good suggestions. I am in favour of EEng's newest one, because it succintly phrases the article. I (personally, and you are free to disagree) don't think that we should put the conspiracy theories in the first sentence as they are not the focus of the article. I think it'd be good to keep them towards the end of the lead, so that the article discusses the existence of these theories without abjectly making them the focus (let's face it, when many readers see the word "conspiracy" anywhere on wikipedia, they jump right to that section). Regarding the sentence above, I agree with Alistair on changing "controversy" to "debate," but I personally would like to keep the suggested "to some" out of it; I think that would be getting into who thinks the government's conclusion(s) are debatable, and going into the different advocates of each side is a little much for the article lead.
 * Flaming Goldfish (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I made some change based on some of what I read here. I do think we need to include the word "assassin" or "assassination" in the 1st paragraph - for that is what it was. I used the word "sniper" because it makes it clear (esp for those who know little about the assassination) that the "gunman" was a rifleman who was hidden & thus so was his identity. It also avoids the awkward "who was fatally shot in Dallas" in a sentence whose subject is Oswald. There were 4 gov't investigations - not 3. Omitting any of the 4 raises POV issues. The HSCA was the only one to conclude "probable conspiracy", and so some backtalk (nameless others, contested acoustic evidence) on its conclusions is appropriate. The fact that evidence is still classified is very relevant to why there is still debate - though I doubt the debate will ever end.
 * --JimWae (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ''Here's JimWae's version (though I, EEng, have reverted it out of the actual article while discussion continues -- hope you don't mind, JimWae -- see below):
 * Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to four government investigations, the sniper who assassinated President of the United States John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. 
 * [paragraph omitted]
 * In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, a conclusion reached previously by the FBI and Dallas Police. In 1979, The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) agreed that Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald, but also concluded that Oswald was probably part of a conspiracy. The HSCA did not identify any other individual or group of such a conspiracy, and the acoustic evidence it relied on for its findings of a probable conspiracy has since been contested. Some of the evidence gathered by the four investigations is still classified, and the circumstances surrounding Kennedy's death continue to be the subject of debate.


 * What is the "token" reference about? I thought this is about accurate balance. The HSCA made a finding of conspiracy. It should be noted in the Lead.
 * This is about the impression the Lead of the LHO article conveys to the reader. There was nothing in it that gave the impression that there was any other conclusion about LHO being a guilty, lone sniper that three (2 Federal, 1 city) investigations of the murders of JFK and of P.O. Tippitt, all completed by 1964. I thought that the Lead needed this for balance and accuracy.:
 * "The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established...to investigate the John F. Kennedy assassination .... and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, probably as a result of a conspiracy."
 * The text above comes directly from the Lead of HSAC and it adds balance and accuracy to the first impression read of the LHO article. Why does it have to keep being edited from the identical, but abbreviated wording in the lead of the HSCA article? If the recent edits stay, and there is nothing cited to support the deviation from the text above, can I not apply the same wording next to the other three described investigations in the LHO article lead? IMO, there are many controversies related to those three investigations.
 * I am sure the intent of the most recent edits it to shape a first impression that only the HSCA findings of a conspiracy are controversial, as no such connotation is hung on the references to the other three investigations.
 * ruidoso Ruidoso (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

Well, howzabout simpler still?:


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


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


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

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

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


 * I don't like leaving out the investigations or the fact that all of those investigations fingered Oswald. Gamaliel (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gamaliel, the first sentence you've suggested implies Oswald's guilt was established by convention, rather than by successive enquiries. It seems more like your own commentary than fact. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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




 * ''Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to a series of official investigations, the sniper who shot President of the United States John F. Kennedy from a window of the Texas School Book Depository building in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.


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


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

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


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

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

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


 * 1>Are people thinking that we cannot specify in the lede the names or numbers of investigations that concluded Oswald was the assassin? Is that thinking because the HSCA was so flawed, but we cannot say so and cannot even say it is contested without having to list every detailed criticism of the other investigations? The overarching criticism of the Warren Commission is that the public does not think the issue is settled - saying that (and that evidence is still classified) says a lot in a summative way. There is no way that every criticism of the WC can fit in the lede, but the 2 criticisms of the HSCA are easily summarized.
 * 2>The most germane link for Oswald is to the assassination article. The link to JFK himself is quite irrelevant in comparison--
 * JimWae (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * I agree that "minus, as much as possible" is a goal - but investigations into his involvement are crucial to saying much of anything when it comes time to tell of his "role" in the assassination here, as unavoidably we must. Btw, "according to every official investigation, the sniper who..." or "according to all four official..." would also be correct - and more complete. --JimWae (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think a "Main article" hat or "see also" works in a lede--JimWae (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

Page 438

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

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

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

Page 439

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

"Pleas refer to:

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

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

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

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

Mr. HOSTY. You mean after I determined this?

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

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

Mr. STERN. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Stern then asks: The 45 minute time interval?

Lawson: Yes, sir.

Stern: Was established for you by the White House?

Lawson: Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

(from the testimony of Roy Kellerman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Root "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=d32jyAysvGQC&pg=PA200&dq=%22Assignment,+Oswald%22+%22%22the+oswald+cover-up&hl=en&ei=w0dCTOjIE8KC8gb50NAE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Assignment%2C%20Oswald%22%20%22%22the%20oswald%20cover-up&f=false Assignment, Oswald - Page 200 James P. Hosty, Thomas C. Hosty - 1995 - 328 pages "On September 15, 1975, Time magazine ran an article entitled "The Oswald Cover-up" that made reference to Oswald delivering the note to me. However, Time relied on sworn affidavits from as many as six high-ranking FBI men to assert, ... "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * This is irrelevant. If you read Hosty's book (see especially p. 158, which is included in the excerpt in the Google link above), you will see that he makes clear that the Secret Service had very strict rules for what the FBI should "bother them" about. If it wasn't a DIRECT THREAT TO THE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT, they didn't want to know about it. The FBI's other problems were the FBI's problems (no Department of Homeland Security in 1963). Of course, after the fact, the Secret Service pretended like mad and tried to suggest that their own rules were violated. But they didn't do that before the Warren Commission or anywhere else in public, because they could not have got away with it. Everybody knows the Secret Service is interested only in direct threats to their own charges. If Hosty had brought up threats to himself or his own organization, they've no doubt have frankly laughed at him. As for the other part, Hosty's book makes clear what I had surmised, which was that although he knew the TSBD was on "Elm," he had only the vaguest idea of its physical location in Dallas (Elm is a long street). He found out about the presidental motorcade route the night before the assassination, but the plan was for it generally to go down Main Street, and there certainly wasn't a sign saying "Texas School Book Depository Here." It's an interesting question of what Hosty would have done, if he actually had realized that the president would drive right under/by Oswald's place of work. Would he have said to the Washington team: "Hey, guys, the motorcade is going to go right by a building where a Russian defector who doesn't like me, works..." "Yeah, so?" "well, he's a RUSSIAN DEFECTOR!" "So?" "And, he has threatened the FBI!" "Has he threatened the president or vice president?" "No...."  "Well, Special Agent Hosty, you're a big boy, and we're sure you'll be fine. Let us know if you Hoover Boys need any help from us in weapons training...;)" Anyway, if you find all this somehow conspiratorial, rather than after-the-fact bumbling and Monday morning quarterbacking, take it to JFK assassination conspiracy theories article. Please don't bother us with it here.  S  B Harris 05:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * headerstyle=background:#ccccff|bodystyle=text-align:center}}

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