JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI,
You put a lot of effort into undermining the case for Oswald ever having been in Mexico City. You might have saved yourself some trouble by asking HS whether he accepts the memo written by J. Edgar Hoover to LBJ on the night of the assassination where he voices the belief that Oswald was being impersonated.

That Hoover memo has to be taken largely on trust since no intercepted recordings of an impersonator have ever been made public. A photograph of what was claimed to be a person entering one of the embassies at the time of Oswald is clearly not him and may be an impersonator, but that has not been established. So HS can accept or reject what Hoover claimed.

If he accepts Hoover’s memo then he is accepting that some kind of conspiracy was in place in Mexico City. If he rejects Hoover’s memo as being accurate then about 95% of the Warren Commission case goes down the drain, for almost the entire case for the LG theory was investigated and signed off by FBI agents under Hoover’s jurisdiction.

Thank you for reminding me, Cobalt.

I have mentioned it previously, but I did on this occasion - in # 1308 - mention the FBI's disbelief that the man was really Oswald:

The CIA advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald.

(FBI memo)


I think that either you are referring to the same memo or to a telephone call from Hoover to Johnson containing substantially the same information:


That's one angle that's very confusing. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's {Oswald's} voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there.

(Hoover to Johnson)


There is a considerable body of evidence that Oswald was being impersonated - in both America and Mexico - and that the director of the FBI was convinced that he was being impersonated.

The question is: if Oswald was acting alone, and nobody knew of his plans, and no-one was interested in him, why was he being impersonated on numerous occasions?

Why was he being impersonated shooting bull's eyes at shooting ranges, saying he would come into money on or soon after 23 November, after test driving a car at 70 mph, asking two people separately to have the sight on his rifle repaired, and making a spectacle of himself at the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy, while declaring his devotion to the Cuban Revolution?

There is only one possible explanation: he was being framed.

[cobalt]

'Virtually every male occupant of Dallas would have made a better ‘patsy’ than Oswald.'

Name one.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

HS has provided a comprehensive and convincing explanation to show that Oswald was in Mexico City. What he has not done is explain why, at the same time, the Head of the FBI believed that Oswald was also being impersonated. Hoover’s belief was based on photographs taken (or some would suggest photographs NOT taken ) outside the two embassies and also a tape recorded intercept which was of a person claiming to be Oswald but sounded nothing like him, speaking pidgin Russian.

This creates a massive problem for those who believe in the LG theory. For if Oswald was a disaffected US citizen seeking refuge, or perhaps even seeking support in his role as self-styled assassin, from countries viewed as hostile, why would it be necessary to impersonate him? Who was doing this and for what purpose?

In short there was a conspiracy of some sort being played out in Mexico City involving Oswald. Clearly the intention was to link him, prior to the assassination, with the USSR and Cuba. It was a clumsy part of the conspiracy and not very successful since the Soviets and the Cubans would have known of Oswald’s history as a fake defector and smelled a rat. Oswald hadn’t a hope in Hades of receiving any visas, hence I suppose the desperate phone call made impersonating him.

Oswald gunned down with a Cuban transit visa in his pocket was presumably the plan for 22 November, but all they got instead was a bus transfer ticket from near Dealey Plaza.

One question I have raised before is: why would Oswald be trying to arrange passage to Cuba eight weeks before the assassination, when he could not know that a job in a building on the motorcade route was some two and a half weeks away?

It brings to mind District Attorney Wade's remark to a reporter that he thought Oswald had been planning the assassination for weeks or even months.

Evidently, Wade did not know when Oswald had started work nor when the motorcade route had been published.


Another conspiracy fingerprint arises in the following exchange between HS and me:


…..In a letter to the Russian Embassy Oswald recounted the trouble that he’d had at the Cuban consulate. (HS # 1270)


The letter to which you refer is, I believe, the letter which, as reported in the Los Angeles Times on August 6, 1999, was believed by the Soviet Ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin, to be a forgery.

Dobrynin recorded his opinion, which was based partly on comparison of the letter with letters known to have been received from the real Oswald, in an internal memo.

The letter was also reported to have been typed. (PI 1 # 1308)

As I noted, everywhere one looks in the assassination of JFK there are traces of conspiracy, the exposure of which gives rise to more and more extreme reactions and violent accusations of despicable behaviour on the part of those who draw attention to them.

[cobalt]

Yes, the Henry Wade who boasted he had sent men to the electric chair on less evidence than gathered against Oswald.
And Bill Fritz who had a remarkable 98% conviction rate in the homicide department despite never using a stenographer to take notes during Oswald's 12 hour questioning. The room was too small he claimed.
Quite a pair.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Virtually every male occupant of Dallas would have made a better ‘patsy’ than Oswald.'

Name one.

Frank Smith.

[Herlock Sholmes]

PI,
You put a lot of effort into undermining the case for Oswald ever having been in Mexico City. You might have saved yourself some trouble by asking HS whether he accepts the memo written by J. Edgar Hoover to LBJ on the night of the assassination where he voices the belief that Oswald was being impersonated.

That Hoover memo has to be taken largely on trust since no intercepted recordings of an impersonator have ever been made public. A photograph of what was claimed to be a person entering one of the embassies at the time of Oswald is clearly not him and may be an impersonator, but that has not been established. So HS can accept or reject what Hoover claimed.

If he accepts Hoover’s memo then he is accepting that some kind of conspiracy was in place in Mexico City. If he rejects Hoover’s memo as being accurate then about 95% of the Warren Commission case goes down the drain, for almost the entire case for the LG theory was investigated and signed off by FBI agents under Hoover’s jurisdiction.

So you’ve now joined St. George in the kids room? Like the arguing parents saying to the kids “tell you father that I’m going to the shops.” When the father is sitting at the same table?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

I really, really don’t want to bother responding to this tissue of poor thinking, invention, gullibility and sheer fantasy but I probably will later today when I get back.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Response to PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR

Me -No, Oswald actually said that the police had used him as a patsy for the murder and arrested him simply because he’d been in Russia. (HS)

PI -He did not say that it was simply because he had lived in the Soviet Union that he was being set up as a patsy. He was obviously pointing to his supposed defection as a pretext to set him up as a patsy,


Me - I’ll quote what Oswald actually said. Anyone able to read and understand the English language can see what this means. You are reading it with the conspiracy goggles on. You’re making an inference which can’t be made from what was actually stated.


"I didn't shoot anybody" and, "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy.”

So there we have it. We can see what he said, and in what context. At no time did Oswald ever mention or even hint at a conspiracy. At no time did Oswald ever mention or even hint at anyone else being involved. Could this really be clearer?

Conspiracy theorists should perhaps spend more time actually reading the lines and less time trying to read between them.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, the Henry Wade who boasted he had sent men to the electric chair on less evidence than gathered against Oswald.
And Bill Fritz who had a remarkable 98% conviction rate in the homicide department despite never using a stenographer to take notes during Oswald's 12 hour questioning. The room was too small he claimed.
Quite a pair.

I read that a tape recorder was not available, either.

The World's foremost military and nuclear superpower could not locate a tape recorder to record the interrogation of the alleged assassin of its president.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Response to PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR


M -Jack Ruby said that he wasn’t part of any conspiracy (HS)

PI -I repeat: Ruby too stated that there was a conspiracy, both to murder Kennedy and Oswald.


'.. and who else could have timed it so perfectly by seconds?

If it were timed that way, then someone in the Police Department is guilty of giving the information as to when Lee Harvey Oswald was coming down.'

(Jack Ruby's testimony, Warren Commission Hearings, Volume V, page 206)

Clearly Ruby is saying that, if it was timed so precisely then it would have had to have been because the police were complicit.

'Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.'

And then, in answer to a reporter's question, 'Are these people in very high positions, Jack?', he responded, "Yes."

(Jack Ruby at Press Conference in March 1965)

Me - Ok. Back on planet Earth. The first point is obvious PI - context - conspiracy theorist love to take selective or partial quotes out of context to manipulate a point. Read the whole of Ruby’s testimony. Read it properly and without the goggles on. There was a conflict there concerning when Ruby decided to kill Kennedy. The Commission when questioning him were of the belief that he’d planned the murder and carried it out in a cold blooded way. This is why he said: “If it were timed that way, then someone in the Police Department is guilty of giving the information as to when Lee Harvey Oswald was coming down.”

He was saying, and this isn’t inference because it’s clearly stated, that if the commission were correct and he’d planned it beforehand then the only way that he could have got in was if the police had let him in. But Ruby was completely disagreeing with the Commission. It was his contention that he hadn’t planned it; that he saw the opportunity and took it. Nice try PI.

…….

The other quotes are also gryst to the conspiracist mill. He’s just talking about why he killed Kennedy and is complaining that Commission were intent on portraying him as a cold blooded killer who planned the murder of Oswald rather than a man under tremendous grief who acted on the spur-of-the-moment. The people in high positions point, well the Commissioners were in ‘high positions’ and Ruby thought that they were trying to portray him in a certain way. It’s also a fact that when talking about his being in danger he pointed to The John Birch Society and General Walker.

Jack Ruby was clearly a disturbed man. He shut down his clubs; everyone that knew him said how distraught and unbalanced he was.

Karen Carlin: "I reached him [Ruby] at home [on Saturday night, Nov.23]. He answered the telephone. And I asked Jack if we were going to be open, and he got very angry and was very short with me. He said, "Don't you have any respect for the President? Don't you know the President is dead?" And I said, "Jack, I am sorry. Andrew said that perhaps we would be open, and I don't have any money, and you know I am supposed to get paid." And I wanted some money on my pay to get back home. And he said, "I don't know when I will open. I don't know if I will ever open back up." And he was very hateful. And he said he had to come down to the club in about an hour, and for me to wait and he would see me then. And I hung up and told my husband what had happened; and we waited and waited, and he didn't show up."

or this…


BURT W. GRIFFIN -- "Tell us how this call went...you picked up the phone and there was Jack."

EILEEN KAMINSKY (Jack Ruby's sister) -- "That's right."

MR. GRIFFIN -- "What did he say and what did you say?"

MRS. KAMINSKY -- "He was crying to start off with. He said--he said, "Did you hear the awful news?" And I said, "Yes," and he said, "Oh, my God, oh, my God." He repeated it several times. He said, "What a black mark for Dallas...""


Or this…


PHIL BURLESON (Eva Grant's attorney) -- "And at that time what was Jack's state as you recall it?"

EVA GRANT (Jack Ruby's sister) -- "Well, I was hysterical myself. He must have been crying, from his voice."


[Later...]

BURT GRIFFIN -- "Did he [Jack Ruby] tell you he called Eileen?"

MRS. GRANT -- "Yes, it seems to me he told me that."

MR. GRIFFIN -- "What did he say about that?"

MRS. GRANT -- "Now, let me explain something. You see, you are jumping the gun. When he was sitting on this chair and crying, I had made this remark--don't forget, I saw all this business on television already. This was now after 6. Maybe even a quarter of 7. He left shortly after 7."

or this…


BURT GRIFFIN -- "Mr. Rubenstein, who did you hear about the crying from? Who told you about the crying?"

HYMAN RUBENSTEIN (Jack Ruby's brother) -- "Eva [Grant]. He made her sick. He came over there crying. .... Also from the rabbi in Dallas. He went to synagogue Saturday night, and he cried, and there is witnesses to prove it in the synagogue."

MR. GRIFFIN -- "Are there people in the synagogue who saw him?"

MR. RUBENSTEIN -- "People in the synagogue that saw him crying when they had a special, some services for the President and they saw him crying and the rabbi saw him crying."

…….

Ruby was clearly unbalanced and was judged by a psychiatrist. He was certainly unhappy that the Commission were trying to portray him as a calculating killer rather than how he wanted to be seen, as a man overwhelmed by grief and who felt that he was doing the American public and the Kennedy family a favour.

And just like Oswald, at absolutely no time did Ruby ever mention being part of a conspiracy or that anyone else was involved in the killing of Oswald. He had multiple opportunities but he said nothing. So conspiracy theorists resort to making things up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I read that a tape recorder was not available, either.

The World's foremost military and nuclear superpower could not locate a tape recorder to record the interrogation of the alleged assassin of its president.

And they could plant a rifle without putting the wrong one there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

PI -Instead, [Greer] slowed the car down almost to a halt, to facilitate the assassination, and actually looked back at Kennedy, waiting for his brains to be blown out instead of getting him to safety.

Me - This is despicable even by the lower-than-whaleshit standards of a conspiracy theorists. As he heard the second shot Greer absolutely understandably turned around to see what was happening and to check on the president as he did so the car slowed momentarily then there was the head shot and he sped away.

Jackie Kennedy herself saw that Greer was distraught because he couldn’t save the President and to make him feel better and to know that she didn’t blame him she insisted that he drive the casket.

I don’t have the stomach to keep responding to this dirt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Kellerman (who you character assassinate too) and Greer both looked to the rear. I wonder why?

Because that’s where the President was and that was where the bullets were coming from!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your other points are just not worth responding to I’ve responded to 4 which is more than you did when I posted questions.

There’s only so much nonsense and so many lies I can cope with.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Response to PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR

Me -No, Oswald actually said that the police had used him as a patsy for the murder and arrested him simply because he’d been in Russia. (HS)

PI -He did not say that it was simply because he had lived in the Soviet Union that he was being set up as a patsy. He was obviously pointing to his supposed defection as a pretext to set him up as a patsy,


Me - I’ll quote what Oswald actually said. Anyone able to read and understand the English language can see what this means. You are reading it with the conspiracy goggles on. You’re making an inference which can’t be made from what was actually stated.


"I didn't shoot anybody" and, "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy.”

So there we have it. We can see what he said, and in what context. At no time did Oswald ever mention or even hint at a conspiracy. At no time did Oswald ever mention or even hint at anyone else being involved. Could this really be clearer?

Conspiracy theorists should perhaps spend more time actually reading the lines and less time trying to read between them.

I think it is clear that Oswald was claiming that he was being framed, and that he was alleging that his supposed defection to the Soviet Union was being used as a pretext to pin the assassination on him.

If he had not used the word 'patsy', then I would agree with you, but he did.

The fact that he did not go into detail does not mean he would not have spilled the beans later.

He indicated to a Secret Service agent just before he was murdered that he would consider his invitation to tell what he knew about any conspiracy.



I would remind you of two of our exchanges on related matters.


You claimed that Ruby denied that there was a conspiracy - and it is true that he made conflicting statements.


In response, I quoted Ruby stating categorically:


(1) that there was a conspiracy, involving someone or persons in the Dallas Police Department, to murder Oswald

(2) that he shot Oswald on the orders of powerful people

(3) that powerful people would cover up the truth about both assassinations



You claimed that Oswald wrote a letter in which he referred to his alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.


In response, I cited evidence cited by the Los Angeles Times that the Soviet ambassador noted in an internal memo that the letter, which had been typed, was a forgery.

It had been compared with letters known to have been received from the real Oswald and it did not match them.



I would not dream of accusing you of being gullible, but I don't see how you can explain away the categorical statements made by Ruby about a conspiracy, a cover-up, about the timing of his shooting of Oswald - I suppose what Caz would call something 'written in the stars' - and about his having been ordered to kill Oswald.

I would also point out that his statement that he received help from within the Dallas Police Department to kill Oswald was made under oath.

The fact that Dobrynin concluded that the letter you say was written by Oswald was a forgery is damning enough, but the fact that he did so privately suggests that he was not in any way trying to disseminate false information.

The fact that the letter was typed is also significant, since a forger might have been able to forge Oswald's signature, but could hardly have forged a whole letter.

The forging of Oswald's signature on the letter to the Soviet Embassy obviously has implications for the genuineness of the signatures you say Oswald produced in Mexico City.

As Edwin Lopez noted, Sylvia Duran did not confirm that Oswald signed his application form in her presence.

It was established that the Oswald in Mexico City did not obtain photographs there.



There is overwhelming evidence that Ruby did not act alone, that Oswald's letter to the Soviet Embassy was a forgery, and that he was impersonated by someone in Mexico City who was inches shorter, had a different hair colour, was about 10 years older, looked nothing like him, did not personally sign his application form, and went through the motions of visiting photo booths recommended by Duran.