Did Lee Harvey Oswald Kill Officer J D Tippit?

[Tel]

[robert newell]

Hi Jonathan H.. In post number two, you refer to Oswald carring an oblong package to work. Would you please tell me who said this. Which witness said Oswald was carrying an oblong package?

[Tel]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-02-27/news/1992058163_1_donahue-high-treason-mortal-error

[robert newell]

I agree with a lot of what you say Errata. There is some serious research into Gen. Edwin Walker, (yes that one), and the right wing, and Texas oil, that is interesting. Paul Trejo and Jim Root are two names of researchers that come to mind. If the assassination planners wanted the shooting to be placed on Castro's doorstep, They really were not worried about more than one gunman being found out about. As long as they had LHO roped up and tied as the pro Cuban-commie assassin. If people thought that there were more than one shooter, all the better. "Let's get the basta**s, Their probably sipping palm wine in Havana.." But alas, sometime even the best cover-ups need to be covered up.....Robert
ps..You're family connections to Dallas are really neat!

[Tel]

... and here

http://www.jfklink.com/articles/EmoryRoberts.html

[Tel]

JFK = Accidental Death? It's certainly original!

Was the gun accidentally pointed at him, or just accidentally fired?

Regards, Bridewell.

Well the theory (which in my opinion is sound) is that when Oswald (or somebody) fired from the TBR the cars in the cavalcade accelerated forward. Behind the presidential car there was a secret service man, armed with an AR15 standing in the rear of a following car, as the cars sped forward this man was thrown off balance and accidentally triggered the shot.

There is some interesting reading here.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm

[Jonathan H]

Everybody did it -- but Oswald?

I don't know where to even start to disentangle all this mythologising?

Let me take this angle to try and show that because Oswald was some sort of leftist (though not a normal Red, eg. quietly attending meetings, organizing strikes, and such like) we have this plethora of conspiracy 'theories' which try to incriminate elements of the extreme Right.

Arthur Bremmer shot Wallace but did not kill him. A right-wing figure was the target, and Bremmer had no politics.

Sue enough there are no grand conspiracy theories, even though taking out Wallace secured Nixon's handsome re-election in 1972.

Let us take the Reagan near-assassination of 1981.

The mentally-disturbed John Hinckley was born to wealth, and flirted with the American Nazis. So, a Republican family's kid who mixes with the extreme Right shoots the right-wing President Reagan?! Because he loves an actress?

Isn't that all a bit suspicious?

Apparently not, because Conspiracy Buffs are either leftists or flirt with leftist theorizing, so there are no conspiracy theories about that terrible incident -- plus Reagan and Hinckley survived.

I think that if the initial expectation had been met, that the assassin was a Bircher or a Klansman, who killed JFK to prevent the 'mongrelization' of America, or other such vile hysteria, the official verdict would have been not only accepted but fervently embraced.

But I will give the Dallas Buffs this.

Quite inadvertently they have denied Lee Harvey Oswald the one thing he so desperately craved and essentially gave up his life for: the notoriety that he killed JFK -- that he was a World Historical Figure who bravely threw a gigantic monkey-wrench into the capitalistic death-machine.

Instead the Buffs have reduced the authentic assassin to the inconsequence of a 'patsy'; a poor, powerless doofus who was framed by much more important people and all-powerful organizations.

[Errata]

There's a certain amount of historical evidence that lone gunmen (knifemen, rockmen, whatever) are barking mad, and the triggermen in conspiracies are not stable by any means, but they aren't crazy.

Charles Guiteau was a complete nutter. Zangara, Czolgosz, Amir, Moore, Fromme, Byck, Hinkley, Bremer, all completely out of their minds.

John Wilkes Booth was an alcoholic, but not mad. Princip was pathetic, but not mad. James Earl Ray was as dumb as a brick, but not mad. Stauffenberg was crippled, but not only was he not mad, he was nigh heroic.

Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't crazy. Unbalanced, yes. Violent, sure. Unpleasant, absolutely.

Historically speaking, that means conspiracy. Not necessarily a CIA/Mafia/Cuban conspiracy. More like a bunch of ex military guys stockpiling weapons in a basement kind of conspiracy... not really dissimilar to the Lincoln Conspirators. But the assassination trend does point to an organization rather than an individual.

[robert newell]

Hi Observer...Thanks for the question. After all my years of study I wish I could tell you that I think this group or that pulled off the assassination. I do know that there are people who have the energy and smarts to dive through that morass and they have done some excellent research. I sort of-have regulated my self to being a 'foot soldier' in the study. I concentrate on the three murders that weekend.
So I do not feel that I'm copping out, I think that funding may have been oil, and the ever popular cia-cuban operations on the ground. There were a lot of fingers on that trigger that day. And a lot of fingers reaching for a chance. Don't forget the thwarted attempt in Chicago, just weeks before.
As far as Tippit..There are enough turns to his story as any in this subject. I do not believe that Oswald shot him. One thing I do know. Once Tippit's killing was broadcast over the police radio Dealey Plaza emptied of most of it's law enforcement personal. Investigator's ..run away, run away!
Thanks again Observer...Robert

[Observer]

Hi Robert

Putting aside your suggestion that we concentrate on one piece of evidence at a time, a good suggestion by the way, permit me to ask you who you think was responsible for the assassination of J F Kennedy, and officer Tippit?

regards

Observer

[robert newell]

Hi all... howsa bout' we pick one piece of evidence and concentrate on that. The handgun, witness timing,police actions, theater arrest, evidence chain, etc...or even backtrack to the tsbd and really have some fun. Not all of us people who believe in a conspiracy are tin foil hat cases. The evidence itself lacks proof as to Oswald's guilt. The proof of conspiracy lies in the Warren Commission itself. Lone gunman enthusiasts have a habit of saying a certain piece of evidence is true because it has to be, since Oswald shot the President. (The Bug syndrome). Please follow the evidence and/or lack of evidence with the same open mindedness you do jtr and I think you will see that acceptance of vital evidence by any of us in this case is a mistake.
I'm not looking for some grand conspiracy. It's just that study of this case for a long time has led me to my belief in a conspiracy. Sorry if I yak ed too long. By the way..I cannot thank the members here enough for the daily enjoyment and learning I get on jtr. .......Robert

[Bridewell]

Of course Ruby is not a mob hit because the mob would never have allowed Oswald to be taken like that, and to sit with the cops chatting for hours.

Hi Jonathan,

Doesn't that pre-suppose that the mob were in a position to allow it? Could it not be argued that they were powerless to prevent it? If the forces of law and order wanted to arrest him, and the mob wanted to silence him, would it not be a simple question of who got to him first? (I'm not claiming any mob involvement btw, just following a line of thought).

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

Jack Ruby was unstable and he wanted to show that a Jew could do the right thing for the slain president -- and plug the little creep who had widowed Jackie.

This is the first time I've ever heard the Jewish angle. Why would he need to show that "a Jew could do the right thing for the slain President"? Had the Jewish Community failed him previously? Was Ruby under the impression that they had? If so, why?

[Observer]

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for that. I have no reason to doubt that Oswald killed both President Kennedy, and Officer Tippit, and that he acted alone. I wasn't aware of D P Moynihan 'part in the drama, truth is I've never even heard of Mr Moynihan, but to me his fears for Oswald safety speaks volumes. I think Ruby acted alone, Mr Moynihan's views seem to suggest this. Regarding your fears that membership of the invisible Nazi substructure could be tagged onto you profile, believe me it could be worse, at least it's not the very visible Nazi subculture whose presence on Ukrainian football terraces is only too evident. Very worrying indeed, very worrying.

regards

Observer

[Jonathan H]

Jack Ruby was unstable and he wanted to show that a Jew could do the right thing for the slain president -- and plug the little creep who had widowed Jackie.

Ruby may have stalking Oswald, as he was at the police conference, but Ruby was often there, the classic groupie, handing out his sleazy club's card, and so on.

Of course Ruby is not a mob hit because the mob would never have allowed Oswald to be taken like that, and to sit with the cops chatting for hours.

The Mafia would hardly have killed the president anyhow when they rarely shot cops. It was such an extraordinary risk.

A mobster even shared a mistress with JFK and it never occured to him to use her, eg. as a scandal, to get the Justice Dept. off his back -- it never even ocurred to Giancana to try blackmail, or bluff.

And yet they supposedly placed their lives in the hands of aunrelibale fringe figure such as Jack Ruby, who later kept telling people it was all an anti-Semitic conspriacy?

Ruby shooting Oswald was a fluke because, the night-club owner was next door at a western union post office mailing a cheque. It is time-stamped. A couple of minutes later he walked down the garage and shot Oswald as he was coming out, with the cops to be moved via van to another jail.

There is no way that kind of timing can be planned.

Oswald was officially being moved mch earlier, yet Ruby was not in position. At the last minute Oswald decided to change his top -- that got him killed as Ruby was now on time.

Ruby loved his pet dog and would never have taken her with him, to be left distressed in his car, if he thought he was going into custody.

The Campisi Brothers, local hoods, visited Ruby in prison asking if they could help. They would never have gone near Ruby if he was one of their own 'hit men', or even perceived to be one.

The notion of the Mafia's involvement post-dates the release of 'The Godfather' in 1972, and because of the minor detail that Oswald had an uncle in New Orelans who was a minor figure in the Marcello empire. As Mailer wrote: the middle class is so precarious in that city that it is hard not to be working for some tentacle of organized crime if you want to remain a member of the petty bourgeoisie.

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan was at the time a Kennedy administration staffer, later a Nixon Cabinet Sec. and later a distinguished liberal Sen. from New York. Once he learned of Oswald's surprising identity -- eg. a pro-Castro leftist and not the expected Bircher/Klansman/racist, he frantically tried to get somebody in authority's attention at the shell-shocked, grief-stricken White House: to have Oswald removed from local custody and into the hands of the Feds. To get Oswald out of trigger-happy, Wild West, Dallas -- or else, he predicted, the suspect is as good as dead ...