Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever discuss your father with Lee Oswald ?
Mr. PAINE. On a phone call shortly after the assassination he called and thought it was outrageous to be pinning Lee Oswald who was a scapegoat, an ideal person to hang the blame on….he and Freddy, his wife….thought it was a steamrollered job of injustice….no member of the Friends of Cuba would want to assassinate the President. That was a crazy idea….I didn’t think Oswald had done it, I didn’t see how it fit in, how it helped his favorite ideals. Testimony of Michael Paine ( 2 H 392 ).
From the time he was arrested, Oswald was deemed guilty. The prevailing sentiment against him and even his family was one of hate. That hate would extend to the Dallas Criminal Bar Association, where no one would step up to represent him.
In fact, no criminal attorney would even talk to him.
His constitutional rights were violated. He requested a lawyer and yet he was repeatedly questioned without benefit of one. Although he was unable to contact his first choice of counsel, he was denied his second. In spite of his repeated public cries for legal help, the police made sure he didn’t get any. His arraignment was held at 1:35 am on Saturday morning, a tactic known in interrogation circles as “sleep deprivation”. This tactic is designed to make a suspect confess to a crime.
He was not allowed to contact counsel or see family who could make that contact for him until Saturday. At that time, police were sure no lawyer would be in his office.
In the end, he was murdered by Jack Ruby in an obvious attempt to prevent him from going to trial. A crinminal trial would have exposed this fraudulent case against him.
As a result of public outcry and Congress’ threat to investigate the whole matter, President Johnson created the Warren Commission to look at the evidence and render a conclusion. The Commission had no investigative arm, but instead relied on the investigation conducted by the FBI.
Suffice it to say that the FBI’s “investigation” of the President’s assassination was nothing of the sort. It was instead a gathering of evidence against Oswald for Kennedy’s assassination, the murder of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit and the shooting at General Edwin A. Walker.
Any evidence that did not support that “Oswald was the sole assasin” was either ignored, omitted or misrepresented.
Some witnesses complained that the statements attributed to them in FBI reports were not the statements they gave.
In other words, the FBI lied in their reports.
In its final report, the Warren Commission mostly rubber-stamped the FBI’s “investigation”. It concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy, murdered Dallas Officer J.D. Tippit and shot at General Edwin A. Walker even though evidence to the contrary existed.
Part I: The Framing
The original framing of Oswald began in Dallas where the prosecutorial system was based on misconduct and whose foundation was “conviction at any cost”. The Dallas DA, Henry Wade, was not beyond executing an innocent man for crimes he did not commit. He had done it in the past.
In fact, it wasn’t until the 2000’s that it was revealed that during the tenure of Henry Wade, 19 innocent defendants were convicted of crimes they did not commit. Those convictions were overturned on DNA evidence, but not before some of those convicted spent years in prison.
John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blames a culture of “win at all costs.”
“When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty,” he said. “I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys.”
The conviction rate can be defined as the number of convictions divided by the number of arrests. In Dallas County, they weren’t necessarily interested in convicting the right perpetrator, they were interested in convicting the person they arrested.
Wade consistently reported annual conviction rates above 90 percent. In his last 20 years as district attorney, his office won 165,000 convictions, the Dallas Morning News reported when he retired.
According to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested a lawyer was a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination. It also rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible in a court of law
The Sins of the Dallas Police: Denial of counsel
Lee Harvey Oswald claimed that the Dallas Police would not let him have a lawyer. He repeatedly asked for “someone to come forward and give me legal assistance”. Nearly every single time he appeared before reporters, he lamented about not having counsel on his behalf.
At the same time, the Dallas authorities were telling different stories to those who came forward in response to Oswald’s pleas. One version was that Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. A second version was that Oswald had been offered counsel and declined any and all legal assistance.
While Oswald did express a preference for Attorney John Abt, he also requested a second choice — any lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union.
“When a suspect in custody asks for a lawyer, from that point on police can not interrogate the suspect at all without an attorney present. It’s not enough to just let the suspect talk to an attorney on the phone. He has to have an attorney present if he has asked for one. That rule remains in effect the entire time the suspect is in custody.” — Jenna Solari, Senior Instructor, Federal Law Enforcemnt Training Center.
More denial before the “Judge”
At the midnight press conference Friday night, Oswald told reporters that he had appeared before a judge and had protested that he was not allowed a lawyer:
That reference was for the earlier arraignment for the murder of J.D. Tippit. By midnight, police had finished the paperwork charging Oswald with the assassination of President Kennedy. But he had not yet appeared before the judge to hear that charge against him.
In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Dallas Bar Association President H. Louis Nichols stated that indigent defendants in criminal felony cases were appointed counsel by judges at their request.
Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the appointment of counsel for indigents accused in criminal cases ?
Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the court will appoint an attorney to represent him……The usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorney–I am talking about a felony case now—or a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the court to appoint him a lawyer, the judges of the criminal district court will, and do appoint lawyers to represent those people. ( 7 H 331 )
So the judge was required by law to appoint a lawyer if a defendant asked for one.
But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )
Homicide Detective Elmer Boyd likewise could not remember what Oswald said. ( 7 H 130 )
The same kind of amnesia seems to have struck Will Fritz ( 4 H 217 ). Detective Richard Sims couldn’t remember what either the judge or Oswald said. ( 7 H 171 )
“Can’t remember” is an old trick used by witnesses who wish to avoid telling the truth under oath.
So here we are told that a judge and three police officers inside Capt. Fritz’s tiny little office couldn’t remember what the most important defendant in Dallas history said during his arraignment for the murder of one of their officers. ( 15 H 507 )
That’s simply not credible.
The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its representatives were discouraged by police from doing so.
The police discourage the ACLU from talking to Oswald
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
After deliberation, Olds and three others headed for Dallas Police Headquarters.
Olds and his party arrived on the fourth floor, where they met Charles Webster, a lawyer and professor of law at SMU, who took them in to see Capt. Glen King.
Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )
There’s a difference between never requesting counsel and being offered counsel and denying it.
And of course, we know that both of these accounts are lies because in his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( ibid., pg. 52 )
Later in his testimony, Hill reiterates:
Mr. HILL ………he had previously in the theatre said he wanted his attorney.
Mr. BELIN. He had said this in the theatre ?
Mr. HILL. Yes; when we arrested him, he wanted his lawyer. He knew his rights. ( ibid., pg. 61 )
Olds attended the Midnight Press Conference”, where Oswald AGAIN publicly requested that “someone come forward to give me legal assistance”.
Having been discouraged by the police, the law professor and the judge from contacting Oswald, Olds was left to choose whom to believe….them or Oswald. It was a choice he’d later regret.
He testified that…
“……I have always been sorry that we didn’t talk with Oswald, because it was not clear whether we would be permitted to see him that night or not.”
Mr. STERN. But, you did not ask to see him ?
Mr. OLDS. No; we did not, which I think was a mistake on my part. ( ibid., pg. 324 )
Olds then told the Commission that the visit of Dallas Bar Association President H. Louis Nichols to speak with Oswald on Saturday went a long way in reassuring Olds’ questions about suspected denial of counsel to Oswald:
Mr. OLDS. Mr. Nichols went down late this afternoon, I think around 5:30, and he reported after that that he had seen Oswald in respect to the same reasons that we had for going down there Saturday night, to see if he wanted some sort of legal representation, and to make sure whether or not he was denied—being denied it, and he said that he was satisfied that–in essence, Oswald told Nichols he was satisfied with the situation. ( ibid., pg. 325 )
Nichols’ public statement after visiting with Oswald that Oswald had denied his help dissuaded the ACLU from contacting Oswald as they had planned to do on Saturday night. But it also damaged Oswald’s chance of obtaining counsel outside of Dallas as well.
Oswald and the Dallas Bar Association
District Attorney Henry Wade had been under pressure from lawyers regarding the treatment of Oswald. One of the issues was Oswald’s repeated public claims that he was not being allowed legal representation.
In Dallas, there were two bar associations: The Dallas Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association.
On Saturday, the 23rd, one of the attorneys who were pressuring Wade contacted H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association to request that he look into whether or not Oswald had legal representation, wanted legal representation or wanted it but had been denied of it.
Nichols response was to call Henry Wade on the phone and make an inquiry. ( 7 H 327 )
Nichols testified before the Warren Commission that Wade told him that as far as he knew Oswald had not asked for any lawyer. Nichols asked Wade to give Oswald a message that the Dallas Bar Association would provide him with a lawyer if he needed one. According to Nichols, Wade said he’d pass the message onto his assistants and if Oswald ASKED for a lawyer, Nichols offer would be given to him. ( ibid. )
Of course, the reason why Wade’s response was a lie is that Oswald HAD been requesting a lawyer from the time of his arrest. This was publicly stated the evening before during the “Midnight Press Conference”.
After thinking it over, Nichols decided that he and a member of the criminal bar association should visit and talk with Oswald.
But according to Nichols, he couldn’t get a member of the criminal bar to go with him.
To have a civil lawyer go in to question Oswald alone was a joke.
A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions: Was he being
beaten?
starved?
deprived of sleep?
isolated from his friends and family?
denied counsel?
In addition, according to his own testimony, Nichols was “connected” to the Dallas Police and the City of Dallas.
Nichols used to work for the city attorney’s office, and at the time of Oswald’s incarceration, still represented the city credit union and had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. ( 7 H 327 )
Nichols calls the police station
Still trying to avoid personally talking to Oswald in person, Nichols then called one of those people, Capt. Glen King of the DPD to ask if Oswald had a lawyer:
“Captain King said that as far as he knew there had been no one representing him, and as far as he knew, Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. He had not asked for the right to call a lawyer, and had not asked that a lawyer be furnished to him—” ( ibid. )
King said this on the afternoon of Saturday, the 23rd, AFTER Oswald had made a public plea the night before for “someone to come forward to give me legal assistance”. It was also AFTER he appeared in the 2:30 pm lineup viewed by William Whaley, who testified:
“He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.” ( 2 H 261 )
Nichols attempted to avoid becoming involved by asking Capt. King to deliver a message to Oswald:
I said, “Well, Glen, if you know at any time that he asks for a lawyer, or wants a lawyer, or needs a lawyer, will you tell him that you have talked to me, as president of the bar association, and that I have offered to get him a lawyer if he wants one.” ( 7 H 327 )
Capt. King offered Nichols the chance to talk to Oswald but Nichols “didn’t know whether I wanted to or not at this point”.
I didn’t know to what extent I would, or wanted to, or should become embroiled in the facts. I wanted to know whether he needed a lawyer, and I didn’t anticipate that I would be his lawyer, because I don’t practice criminal law. ( ibid. pg. 331 )
However, Nichols was pressured into going by a law professor from SMU.
“I then received a call from another lawyer who was a professor out at S.M.U. and he wanted to know whether or not the bar association was doing anything about getting a lawyer for Oswald. I told him what had transpired, what I had done, and I hadn’t decided what should be done at this time, if anything by me, as president of the bar association.
He seemed to think that it would be advisable and would be helpful if I would go up and satisfy myself personally as to whether or not Oswald had any lawyer, wanted a lawyer or was asking for a lawyer and hadn’t been able to get one, and I told him that I had not decided what to do, so, I sat around and decided if it had to be done.
It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon.” ( ibid. pgs. 327-328 )
Nichols’ reluctance to become involved in the issue caused the SMU professor to light a fire under his butt as if to say, “It’s been over 24 hours since his arrest and he hasn’t asked for an attorney yet ?”
Something doesn’t sound right.
Forced to go
When he arrived at the police station, he went up to the Chief’s office looking for Capt. King. The Chief saw him and introduced him to an FBI agent, then volunteered to take him up to Oswald’s cell himself. ( ibid., pg 328 )
When Nichols asks Oswald if he had a lawyer, Oswald starts complaining about his treatment:
Mr. NICHOLS. I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, “Well, he really didn’t know what it was all about, that he was–had been incarcerated, and kept incommunicado, and I said, “Well, I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because as I understand–” I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he said something about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy, or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that killed the President, and I don’t remember who said what after that. This is a little bit vague. ( ibid. )
Here Nichols is having an exclusive talk with the accused assassin of President Kennedy, and he can’t remember what was said in the exchange.
Mr. STERN. He, I gather, used the word “incommunicado” to describe—-
Mr. NICHOLS. Yes; that was his word.
Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate on that, or any—or indicate to you that he had not been able to see members of his family or other people of his choice?
Mr. NICHOLS. No; he did not say that he had been refused anything. Just didn’t elaborate, and I REALLY DIDN’T ASK HIM at that point. MY INQUIRY WAS INTENTIONALLY VERY LIMITED. I merely wanted to know whether he had a lawyer, if he had a lawyer then I had no problems. If he asked for a lawyer and they did not offer him one, that was contrary to what I had been told, because I had been told, as far as the police were concerned, and Mr. Wade, as he recalled, that the man had never asked for a lawyer.
Nor had he asked to call a lawyer, for the right to call a lawyer, so that I was interested in knowing whether or not he had a lawyer and whether or not he had requested a lawyer and been refused….. I didn’t go into the other questions, or whether or not he wanted to see his family and hadn’t been permitted. I really was concerned about whether or not he had a lawyer or wanted a lawyer, or whether we had any obligations to furnish him one. ( ibid., pg. 330 )
In addition, when Oswald asked for John Abt or a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, Nichols told him that he didn’t know Abt and he didn’t know any lawyers who were members of the ACLU but admitted under oath that “as it turned out later, a number of lawyers I know ARE members”. ( ibid. pg. 329 )
What a surprise.
According to Nichols’ testimony, this was the exchange between himself and Oswald:
NICHOLS. What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?”
OSWALD. No, not now. You might come back next week, and if I don’t get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me.
NICHOLS. Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now.
OSWALD. No. ( ibid. )
As Nichols is leaving, Chief Curry asked him to make a statement to the press:
“….As I left the chief asked me whether or not I wanted to make a statement to the press, and I said, “Well, I don’t know whether I do or not. I don’t know whether it is the thing to do or not.” And he said, “Well, they are going to be right outside the door there, and if you want to say anything this would be an opportunity to do it. Incidentally, I am very glad you came up here. We don’t want any question coming up about us refusing to let him have a lawyer. As far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( ibid. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols. In this video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day, Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted. The Chief said that police were not going to call all over town to find him one and obtaining counsel was Oswald’s responsibility, not the department’s.
Nichols then went before the media and stated that Oswald had refused his offer for help:
“He appeared to me that he knew where he was and pretty much what his rights were with regard to being represented, and he knew apparently–at least the conversation was that if he didn’t get somebody to represent him that he wanted that he could always fall back on the bar association, or somebody, and I had told him that I would see him next week if he wanted me to, and I satisfied myself at least, to the extent, that the man appeared to know what he was doing. He did not appear to be irrational.
( Oswald ) appeared to be calm. He turned down my offer of help, and I felt like at that point that was all I needed to do, and this was later Saturday afternoon, and I had no inkling that anything else, except maybe that the next week if he didn’t get a lawyer I might hear from him, or check into it, and that’s all I know about Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.” ( ibid. pg. 330 )
Nichols never mentioned to the press Oswald’s request for John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union. He never mentioned to the press Oswald’s complaint of being held “incommunicado”.
Nichols reluctance to get involved in this case made him a shill for the Dallas authorities who were pushing a narrative that Oswald did not want legal counsel.
Chief Curry, the only witness to the exchange between Oswald and Nichols, could not remember which day it occurred, testifying that Nichols’ visit was on Friday ( 4 H 155 ).
Later in his testimony, Curry is told that Nichols’ visit was on Saturday, not Friday.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, you said that Mr. Nichols came that afternoon. I call to your attention that we have information that he came there on the Saturday afternoon.
Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it was, not the Friday. That perhaps was on Saturday.
Mr. RANKIN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could just summarize briefly where we are.
( Discussion off the record )
A “discussion off the record” is conducted and when the discussion comes back on the record, Curry’s memory has improved.. He tells the Commission that Nichols offered to provide counsel to Oswald, but Oswald “didn’t care to at this time” but in the event he couldn’t secure counsel for himself, he would “call on you later”.
Then Rep. Ford asks the stupidest question:
Representative FORD. Did Nichols and Oswald talk one to another? ( ibid., pg 158 )
Ruth Paine leaves Oswald “hanging”
Mrs. Paine didn’t like Oswald and her testimony indicates that she may have been less than enthusiastic about helping him contact Abt.
She testified that she called both numbers, that Oswald had given her, but was unsuccessful in contacting Abt. When Oswald called back at 9:30 pm, she said that she “couldn’t recall” whether she reported to him that she was unable to contact Abt.
She could only tell the Commission that “something was said but I do not recall it specifically” ( 3 H 88 )
Mrs. Paine further told the Commission that “I am of the impression I again tried the home telephone of John Abt on Sunday morning, but I am not certain and there was no answer. That I certainly remember.” ( ibid, pg. 85 )
How could she know there was no answer if she wasn’t certain she even called ?
When the Commission inquired if Mrs. Paine had ever attempted to report to Oswald that she was unable to contact attorney Abt, she was forced to admit that she “made no effort” to call the police station and speak with him. ( ibid. )
The question remains: did Ruth Paine actually TRY to make those calls on Oswald’s behalf ?
I doubt it, because if she did, she would have kept Oswald informed of her progress.
John Abt told the Warren Commission that he and his wife had gone off for a weekend at their cabin in Connecticut and on Saturday, the press “began to call me up there” and that “these calls kept on all day Saturday and again Sunday morning”. ( 10 H 116 )
How could all of these reporters reach Mr. Abt, but Mrs. Paine could not ?
Even if she could not contact Abt, why didn’t Mrs. Paine, as a member of the Civil Liberties Union, contact that organization for help or at least contact her husband to do so ?
Marguerite Oswald testified that on Friday, the 22nd, she was troubled by the attitude of Ruth Paine towards her son. Although Mrs. Paine said that she could get Lee a lawyer, she was doing nothing about it:
“I am worried because Lee hasn’t had an attorney. And I am talking about that, and Mrs. Paine said, ‘Oh, don’t worry about that. I am a member of the Civil Liberties Union, and Lee will have an attorney, I can assure you.’ I said to myself ‘but when?’ Of course, I didn’t want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a member of the Union, why didn’t she see Lee had an attorney then ? So I wasn’t too happy about that.” ( 1 H 146 )
The truth was Ruth Paine had no intention of helping Oswald.
Lee Harvey Oswald requested a lawyer from the time of his arrest until late Saturday afternoon, when he contacted Ruth Paine for help.
The testimony has also shown that Oswald was held incommunicado until after noon on Saturday. The likelihood of Oswald’s securing counsel at that time had diminished. It was at this time that the Dallas Police allowed his family to see him and allowed him to make his phone call.
During that period between his arrest and the visit of his family, Oswald repeatedly pled for legal assistance and when the ACLU responded to that plea, they were lied to by the Dallas Police and chose to believe that lie.
Attorney Abt testified that he and his wife didn’t leave for the cabin until Friday evening. Had Oswald been allowed to make that phone call Friday afternoon, he would have made contact with Abt before they left for Connecticut.
The authorities were eager to put the “denial of counsel” issue to rest, so they agreed to allow a reluctant civil lawyer with connections to the city and its police department and the president of the Dallas Bar Association, to “question” Oswald about the denial of counsel issue in private.
After that interview, the lawyer faced the press and declared that Oswald had refused his offer for help. The purpose of his “intentionally very limited” interview of Oswald seems to have been to take the pressure off of the authorities in Dallas rather than to insure that Oswald had counsel. By his own admission, his “concern” was not for how Oswald was being treated. When Oswald complained, Nichols admitted that he “didn’t ask any questions”.
His testimony that Oswald told him to “come back next week” defies logic and common sense and is contrary to documented video showing Oswald repeatedly asking for “someone to come forward”.
Not John Abt……..someone…………..ANYONE.
Had Nichols been impartial he would have mentioned that Oswald HAD requested the name of John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union. In addition, an impartial Nichols would have mentioned Oswald’s complaint about his treatment. But the evidence indicates that Nichols was not impartial and in the end, Nichols served the interests of the Dallas authorities better than he served the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Perhaps that was the plan all along.
Further proof of Lee Harvey Oswald’s framing is documented in the way in which the Dallas Police conducted unfair police lineups. Every attempt was made to influence witnesses into identifying Oswald by putting him into lineups with police detectives, teenagers and even a Mexican.
Then there’s evidence of evidence substitution, a constant revision of the evidence in the case. Unless, of course, you believe that police officers can repeatedly misidentify evidence that’s clearly marked and were unable to get the color of a jacket correct that was in their possession.
There’s also evidence that police manufactured evidence in the form of a paper “gunsack” allegedly found on the sixth floor. Investigation of the paper and tape proved that the paper and tape used to make the gunsack came from rolls that were on the shipping table in the TSBD on the AFTERNOON of the assassination.
When you have a guilty suspect, you don’t need to do those things because the evidence will always stand on its own merit. The fact that they DID do those things leaves a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
Not only was there reasonable doubt about his guilt, the fact is that at the time of his arraignment for the assassination of President Kennedy, the Dallas Police had NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE against him for that crime.
Arraignment without evidence
Under normal circumstances, you would have evidence BEFORE you file charges on a suspect.
Since Oswald was arraigned at 1:35 am Saturday 11/23/63, I started searching for what evidence they had which caused them to arraign Oswald for the assassination.
What did I find ?
No evidence Oswald had fired a rifle
All they had was a paraffin test that showed no nitrates on Oswald’s right cheek.
Lack of proof of ownership of the rifle
They didn’t even find the microfilm of the sales transaction that allegedly linked the rifle to him until 2 1/2 to 3 hours AFTER his arraignment.
MR. BELIN: When did you actually find the microfilm of which Waldman Deposition No. 7 is a print ?
MR. SCIBOR: About 4 o’clock in the morning, as far as I can remember.
( 7 H 370 )
No fingerprints were found on the rifle
No identifiable fingerprints on the rifle. ( CE 139 )
Neither the Dallas Police nor the FBI identified Oswald’s prints on the rifle before he was arraigned.
Dallas Police:
MR. DAY….from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his ( Oswald’s ) prints.
Mr. MCCLOY. What about the palm print ?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn’t get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself that it was his palm.
( 4 H 262 )
That fact was broadcast on the “Huntley/Brinkley Report” on NBC by David Brinkley on the evening of the assassination.
The rifle was sent to the FBI at 10 pm that evening and was examined the next day.
Mr. LATONA I was not successful in developing any prints on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms experts dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip ?
Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, that included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were the cartridge cases furnished to you at that time ?
Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139 ?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
( 4 H 23 )
No “Backyard Photographs”
The “backyard photographs” weren’t officially found in the Paine garage until the second search at 1:30 pm Saturday afternoon, about 12 hours AFTER his arraignment for killing the President. ( 7 H 193, 7 H 231 )
According to the official story, they didn’t even have those.
No Eyewitnesses
All of the eyewitnesses who viewed the lineups were Tippit eyewitnesses. There were no assassination eyewitnesses who identified him as Kennedy’s assassin BEFORE his arraignment.
In this video taken on Saturday AFTER Oswald’s arraignment, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry lists the circumstantial evidence against Oswald but refuses to tell reporters about the physical evidence they have.
The fact is that they had NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Oswald killed Kennedy at the time of his arraignment.
No proof that he had fired a rifle
Absolutely no proof of ownership of the rifle
No photographs of him with the rifle
None of his fingerprints on the rifle
No witnesses who saw him shooting the rifle
Nothing. They had nothing.
Oswald was last seen on the sixth floor at 11:55 am, some 35 minutes before the assassination, not “immediately before the shots were fired” as Curry said.
All the “evidence” the police had on him at the time of his arraignment was that he allegedly brought a package into the building and that he had left work without permission.
Bringing a package into the building, whether or not he did, was not a crime under Texas law. Neither was leaving work without permission.
And whether or not he was seen by a police officer in the building after the shooting is immaterial because he worked in the building, a fact verified by his supervisor.
These “connections” of Oswald to the assassination are not evidence of guilt.
Unless you’re Henry Wade. That’s why so many of his convictions were overturned by DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
In fact, Wade even sent an innocent man to the electric chair in 1954.
The fact that they had no evidence against Oswald for the assassination as of 1:35 am Saturday goes a long way in explaining why Jack Ruby had carte blanche access to the Dallas police station. After his murder of Oswald, Ruby told the FBI that “a number of officers knew he had a gun.” ( 20 H 55 )
On Sunday morning, the Dallas Police made sure that Ruby had access to the basement and waited until he was in position before giving the “all clear” signal and bringing Oswald down.
And this time, they made sure Ruby had a clear shot at Oswald and that none of their officers would be hit by mistake.
The sins of the FBI
One of the ways the FBI was able to control what the witnesses said was to threaten those who were positive about things they had seen with “federal charges” if the things they were reporting ended up not being the truth.
Witnesses were then faced with choosing between what they knew to be true, risk a prison sentence of 5 years, or go on the record as having been “unable to identify” or unsure.
It was a tactic that was successful in coercing witnesses to change their minds about what they saw and getting on the record evidence that was not necessarily true.
W.W. Litchfield: Proof the FBI intimidated witnesses
One example that witnesses were coerced comes from the testimony of W.W. Litchfield II, who told the FBI that he saw a man who looked like Oswald in the Carousel Club.
He told the Commission that the FBI threats definitely had an effect on how he answered their questions:
Mr. HUBERT. I gather that you were more positive of the identity of Oswald as being the man in the Carousel on the occasion we have been speaking about at one time than you are now?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. I was; yes.
Mr. HUBERT. What has caused your opinion in the matter to weaken?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. The fact that they gave me the polygraphic test, that showed when they asked me–was it definitely him, it didn’t show up right, and the fact that I had told Don when I called him, I said, “It sure as heck looks like him,” and when the police were questioning me, they said, “Are you positive, are you positive, are you positive?” I said, “It looks like him, it looks like him, it looks like him.” And they come back, “Are you positive, are you positive?”
And then the fact that when the Federal agents talked to me, they said, “You know, if you say you are positive and it wasn’t him,” it’s a Federal charge, and I said, “Well, I’m not that positive.”
Mr. HUBERT. The Federal agent told you if you gave an opinion—-
Mr. LITCHFIELD. No; they said, “If you give false information as to an exact statement–” not an opinion, but if I say I’m positive, that’s a statement.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, are you conveying to me that you really were positive, but that—-
Mr. LITCHFIELD. In my mind.
Mr. HUBERT. You were scared off of it ?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. No, sir; no, sir. I said in my mind I was positive that it looked like him, but I’m just as fallible as anybody else. I could be 100 percent wrong. “In my mind, the man that I saw looked just like him,” but then again, I can’t say 100 percent.
Mr. HUBERT. And that is still your opinion?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. I said it bears a close resemblance, but not having come in contact with Oswald at all or having never met him or anything, and just seeing him for a fleeting glance, the back of his head and when he walked by me; no, I can’t be 100 percent pure positive.
Mr. HUBERT. But you knew all of that the first time you told it to Green ?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Well, like I said, “It sure does look like him–the man I saw there sure does look like Oswald,” those are my words.
Mr. HUBERT. But, what has caused you to weaken in your opinion it was Oswald, as you tell it to me, is the fact that you got the impression that if you gave a positive identification and it proved to be false, that it would be a Federal offense, is that correct ?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes; they said giving false information to the FBI, and I’m not 100 percent pure positive. I say, “It bears a close resemblance,” and this is all I can say.
Mr. HUBERT. And that’s all you did tell them ?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes, sir; that’s the statement I signed. ( 14 H 107-108 )
The FBI used threats against witnesses who were sure of what they saw to make them appear less sure in the official record.
This same tactic was used on witnesses who said they were “positive” that the man they saw was not Oswald.
This is why Federal agents were present during the questioning of witnesses at several different locations including the Tippit murder scene, the Dallas Police station and the Texas Theater, when the FBI had no legal jurisdiction in any of these crimes.
They were there to hear, question and intimidate witnesses.
These tactics seemed to work. Original stories like the one of Charles Givens, who at first said he saw Oswald on the first floor at 11:50 and then said he hadn’t seen Oswald all morning.
Or Domingo Benavides, who was 15 feet away from the Tippit killer but was afraid of not being able to identify the killer if he said he could, so he declined to view a lineup.
But in the case of Marina Oswald, the threat was to deport her if she didn’t “cooperate” with the “investigation”. Deportation would have meant that she would have gone back to Russia without her kids, who were American citizens by birth. She’d go, they’d stay. The threat of losing her children would have been enough to make ANY mother tell them what they wanted to hear. True or not.
The intimidation of Marina Oswald
More evidence of FBI intimidation and threats of witnesses comes no less from Oswald’s brother Robert, who told the Commission that he overheard the FBI threaten to deport Marina Oswald if she did not cooperate with them.
Mr. OSWALD. In my presence. And the tone of the reply between this gentle man and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time.
And she was refusing to. They were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words, as I sat there–if I might state–with Secret Service Agent Gary Seals, of Mobile, Ala.–we were opening the first batch of mail that had come to Marina and Lee’s attention, and we were perhaps just four or five feet away from where they were attempting this interview, and it came to my ears that they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps–I say, again, I am implying–in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia. ( 1 H 410 )
The FBI even brought an agent from the Immigration and Naturalization Service into the Inn at Six Flags ( where Marina was to be kept inccommunicado for two months ) to scare Marina and “advise her to help” the FBI:
Mr. RANKIN. Did you see anyone from the Immigration Service during this period of time ?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who that was ?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t remember the name. I think he is the chairman of that office. At least he was a representative of that office.
Mr. RANKIN. By “that office” you mean the one at Dallas ?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was told that he had especially come from New York, it seems to me.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to you ?
Mrs. OSWALD. That if I was not guilty of anything, if I had not committed any crime against this Government, then I had every right to live in this country. This was a type of introduction before the questioning by the FBI. He even said that it would be better for me if I were to help them.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you what he meant by being better for you ?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the sense that I would have more rights in this country. I understood it that way. ( 1 H 80 )
Not only did the FBI intimidate, coerce and threaten the witnesses, they flat out lied in their reports about what the witnesses said.
In this youtube video I did years ago, I give three examples of FBI reports that lied about what the witnesses said.
The FBI wasn’t the only ones altering what the witnesses said. Evidence that the Secret Service had engaged in falsification of sworn statements comes during the appearance before the Commission of Texas School Book Depository employee Harold Norman. During his testimony, Norman is asked about Commission Exhibit 453, his sworn affidavit, as it is read to him by Counsel Joseph Ball. The issue is that the affidavit, taken by the Secret Service, says that, “I knew the shots had come from directly above us”, a statement Norman testified that he never made.
Altering what the witnesses said was not the only sin of the FBI.
Having control of the witness list, the list of witnesses who would be selected to give testimony to the Warren Commission, allowed the FBI to control the narrative and present only those witnesses whose testimony supported its December 5, 1963 final report on the assassination. Witnesses whose stories did not support that report were simply ignored.
They actively participated in the framing of Oswald’s ownership of the rifle.
How would they have done this ?
With the help of the Postal Inspector in Dallas, very easy.
I don’t believe that any rifle was ever ordered or shipped. I believe that the paperwork is all faked. The FBI had the 40″ rifle serial number C2766 in their possession on the night of the assassination and I believe they made up the paperwork AFTER the assassination to match the rifle.
It wasn’t necessary for Klein’s to be involved in the framing, all they had to do was whatever the FBI requested they do. If the FBI wanted blank order forms, they’d get them. If they wanted order forms filled out or partially filled out, they’d get them. All they had to say was that they wanted them for comparison. Under the circumstances, Klein’s would have complied with whatever the FBI wanted.
They could very well have filled out the form and left the control number and the serial number blank. Examination of the Waldman 7 indicates that more than one person filled out the form.
In order for Oswald to have used the rifle before the attack on General Walker, he had to have ordered it in March, 1963. But the only rifle Klein’s had in stock at the time was the 36″ rifle. So they produced the paperwork from a 36″ rifle and filled in the serial number of the 40″ rifle.
This would have been very easy for the FBI to do, using blank or partially filled out forms from Klein’s and filling in the serial number by hand. Then microfilm the records and destroy the originals.
The only record they couldn’t change was the one from Crescent Firearms, that said that the 40″ rifle was sold in June of 1962. They simply ignored this.
That would explain why the 36 ” rifle with bottom sling mounts they “shipped” had the same serial number as the 40 ” rifle with side sling mounts.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was against the forming of a Presidential Commission. He wanted his report of December 5, 1963 to stand as the final word on the assassination. Unable to prevent the forming of the commission, he was determined to control it by controlling the information it got.
The FBI did this by coercing and intimidating witnesses into saying what they wanted to hear, they lied in their reports, they ignored witnesses and, in the end, controlled who would testify for the public record and who would not.
The FBI was not above threatening witnesses. In this video, Attorney/Author Mark Lane tells us that Orest Pena, who ran a garage in New Orleans and was an FBI informant, said that he and Oswald were being run by the same agent, Warren DeBrueys. Pena said that DeBrueys threatened to kill him if he testified to the Warren Commission about that fact.
Witnesses who were among the closest to the President, like Charles Brehm and William Newman, were purposely kept off the witness list because they believed at least one shot came from the picket fence to the right and in front of the President.
By ignoring these witnesses, the FBI controlled what information the Commission and the public would get.
But the framing of how Oswald PAID FOR and ORDERED the rifle required the help and cooperation of the FBI’s friend and informant, the Dallas Postal Inspector.
The sins of the Dallas Postal Inspector
In 1975, it was revealed that agents of the Federal Bureau of investigation opened and photographed foreign and domestic mail at several sites in the United States beginning in 1958 and continuing until 1970.
The openings were centered in New York and Washington, where they involved chiefly mail addressed to Soviet‐bloc embassies and missions to the United Nations, but occurred also in other cities, including San Francisco.
The openings, known within the F.B.I. as “Zcovers,” were accomplished without the authority of judicial search warrants and were thus a violation of Federal statutes prohibiting obstruction of the mails. They had been made with the assistance of “certain officials of the Post Office [who] knew what the F.B.I. was doing.”
An F.B.I. spokesman issued the following statement:
“In connection with its foreign counterintelligence responsibilities, the F.B.I. did engage in opening of mail until 1966, when former Director J. Edgar Hoover ordered the activity to be discontinued. The motive behind it was solely to carry out F.B.I. counterintelligence responsibilities in order to thwart espionage efforts directed against the United States by foreign powers. No activities of this nature were undertaken by the F.B.I. after 1966.”
A spokesman for the Postal Service said that his agency would have no comment on the report “at this time.” ( 1975 )
The bureau’s unusual confirmation represents the first disclosure that the F.B.I. participated in the opening and photographing of parcels and letters it believed to be of some intelligence value from 1958 thru 1966.
Under these conditions, there is no way that the Dallas FBI and Post Office were not aware of Lee Harvey Oswald.
As an FBI informant, Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes held the distinction of having not one but TWO informant codes, T-2 and T-10.
Holmes was a major player in the conspiracy to frame Oswald by supplying the FBI with the fake postal documents they needed in order to “link” Oswald to the rifle.
Among his several contributions were:
- The destruction of part 3 of the post office box application that showed “A. Hidell” could not receive a rifle at box 2915.
- The use of a postal money order that was taken from a bundle not yet opened.
- Manufacturing an envelope with a post mark of 3/12/63 at 10:30 am.
From his lying under testimony that the destruction of part 3 of the post office box application was “procedure”, to his not knowing when he learned Oswald had box 2915, to his handling of mail and packages to persons not authorized to receive them, Holmes repeatedly violated postal regulations and lied about it to the Commission.
How the framing of the ownership of the rifle was done
Using the official testimony and evidence, let me lay out for you a scenario of how I believe this framing took place. Keep in mind this is just my opinion based on the evidence.
In the early morning of Saturday, November 23rd, the FBI contacted the Dallas Post Office to inquire how they could obtain an “original” post office money order. ( 7 H 293 ) The postal inspector on duty at the time, being an honest man, misunderstood their request as being for a fully processed money order. He told the agent who called that they’d have to contact Washington, but they’d need the number of the money order to track it down. When Holmes showed up for work, the postal inspector told him of the call, whereas Holmes proceeded to his office. ( ibid. )
He called the FBI to find out what they wanted ( 7 H 294 ) and found out that they wanted a blank money order. He was told that payment was received on 3/13/63 for the amount of $21.45 and the rifle was shipped on 3/20/63.
In order to tie Oswald to the money order, it would have to be stamped in Dallas. I seriously doubt Holmes would have left this secretive a task to a subordinate. He would have handled this himself.
Holmes then went to an unopen stack of blank money orders and took one out.
He stamped the money order with the date of 3/12/63, added the amount of $ 21.45 and postmarked the envelope with the same date and a time of 10:30 am and marked it “airmail” to ensure that it “made it” to Chicago on the 13th.
Having the date of mid March, he added a blank order form that he cut out of a February 1963 issue of American Rifleman that was in the “nixie” section of the Dallas Post Office.
He then used the number off the money order stub to notify Washington of the number so when they received it, they knew it was the right one.
The money order, envelope and order blank were flown by special courier to the FBI in Chicago, where Klein’s endorsement stamp could be put on the back of the money order. From there, it was flown directly to Washington, where the “Oswald handwriting” could be copied from documents the FBI already had in their possession. It was officially “found” at 8pm Saturday night, some 7 hours after postal officials had been notified of the number.
Plenty of time for a private flight to Washington with a stopover in Chicago for a quick stamp.
This explains why the money order does not have the stamp of any financial institution on it nor the stamp of the Federal Reserve Bank.
It never went through the Federal Reserve System.
As icing on the cake, all original documents were microfilmed by the FBI before they were destroyed. This would make identification of the handwriting more difficult and would hide any hint that the documents were forgeries.
Like the Walker bullet, none of the people who allegedly handled this money order and whose initials were on the back were called to testify about its authenticity.
Also, none of the Dallas postal employees were ever called to establish that Oswald purchased the money order. Neither the postal employee who “found the stub” nor the postal inspector who took the call from the FBI on Saturday morning were ever identified.
There is no supporting evidence that anything Harry Holmes said about the money order was the truth. Contacts he claimed to have made in Chicago and Washington were never called to testify in support of his claims.
And under those conditions, we must be very suspicious of Mr. Harry Holmes and his role in the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Post-mortem framing: The Warren Commission
As if the FBI and Secret Service’s coercion of witnesses, altering their statements, forging documents and lying under oath wasn’t enough, witnesses were subjected to pre-testimony interviews by the Commission’s lawyers.
These pre-testimony interviews would be legal under an adversary system where the defendant would have counsel and the defense would have the right to cross-examination.
A prosecutor could legally interview his witnesses in advance to determine what they knew and to ask questions the defense might ask at trial. This would avoid any “surprises” that might damage the prosecutor’s case during cross-examination.
But in this case, there was no adversary, no defense. This wasn’t a trial and Oswald’s family would not be allowed to have their counsel cross-examine the witnesses.
Therefore, the purpose of these interviews could only be for counsel to ask questions in order to probe what the witnesses saw or heard and then coach them as to what questions were going to be asked and how to answer them for the public record.
“Lawyers generally may not ask leading questions of their own witnesses. Leading questions are questions that suggest the answers desired, in effect prompting the witness.”
Evidence of the leading of witnesses comes from the testimony of witnesses Mary Bledsoe and Helen Markham.
Mrs. Bledsoe had “taken notes” the week before her appearance “because I forget what I have to say.” ( 6 H 407-408 ) She did so “at the suggestion” of Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels who had visited her previously. ( ibid. pg. 408 )
Mrs. Markham’s exchange with counsel Joseph Ball regarding her identification of Oswald from a police lineup is legendary. He asked her six times if she recognized anyone in the lineup and six times she said no. Finally, he leads her to the answer he’s looking for when he asks her if there was a number 2 man in the lineup. ( 3 H 310 )
In a four-man lineup, there should be a number two man.
What counsel was doing was leading the witness to the man she picked. But given her testimony that she never saw any of the men in the lineup before, the man she picked was not the man she saw kill Tippit.
Not only were witnesses coached and led, when the FBI’s scientific test results did not indicate Oswald’s guilt, the Commission simply went outside the bureau to find an “expert” who would supply it with the conclusions it required.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the examination of the bullets removed from Officer Tippit. The FBI expert, Cortlandt Cunningham, testified that ” it was not possible…to determine whether or not…these bullets…were fired from Oswald’s revolver.” ( 3 H 475 )
The problem was that the individual marks left on the bullets from the revolver’s barrel were not the same, even on consecutively fired bullets. ( ibid. ) This was caused by the slightly smaller diameter .38 special bullets being fired through the larger diameter .38 barrel.
Not satisfied with that conclusion, the Commission went outside the bureau to Joseph Nicol, the Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the state of Illinois. He examined the bullets and concluded that one of the bullets, CE 603, had been fired from the Oswald handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons. ( 3 H 512 )
Finally, as a last resort, when the Commission could not obtain the results it wanted, it flat out lied in its report.
Evidence of this is in how it handled the misfiring of the handgun in the Texas Theater. from its report on the struggle inside the Texas Theater. In its report of the struggle in the Texas Theater, it repeated Officer M.N. McDonald’s report that “the primer of one round was dented on misfire”. ( Report, pg. 560 )
But its own expert, FBI agent Cortlandt Cunningham, testified that the FBI found “no evidence that the handgun’s firing pin had struck any of the unfired rounds” removed from it. ( 3 H 463 )
Cunningham was more specific about the “nick” on the cartridge case: “there was NO indication, from an examination, that that nick was so caused by a firing pin…. …a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made from a firing pin.” ( 3 H 460 )
Lastly, in a memo from Conrad to Jevons ( FBI # 62-109060 Sec. 12, pg. 29 ) the FBI official reports to the Commission liaison that with regard to the four unfired cartridges removed from Oswald’s handgun, “none of the cartridges received from Dallas bore firing pin indentations”.
To say that the Commission misrepresented the evidence is putting it mildly. They flat out lied. They suppressed the fact that the marks on the cartridge were NOT from a firing pin and the possibility that they had been man-made.
The Commission relied heavily on the testimony of Marina Oswald. Had Oswald gone to trial, anything Marina Oswald said would have been inadmissible.
Once he was dead, however, she could testify about anything “EXCEPT oral and written communications from her husband”. ( Mosk memo to Belin, March 11, 1964 )
Of course, the Commission violated this legal standard by questioning Marina about the “Walker note”.
Part II: The Murder
“Always go too far, because that’s where you’ll find the truth.”— Albert Camus
The Warren Commission found that Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas Police headquarters was a spontaneous act, a twist of fate that allowed Ruby to walk through a garage door and down a ramp to be in perfect position to shoot Oswald just minutes before police brought him out.
For years the Commission’s supporters have supported that position by arguing that Ruby could not possibly have known WHEN the transfer was going to occur. They bolster their argument with the fact that Ruby visited a Western Union office to wire some money to one of his showgirls before going to the police station.
They argue, quite rightly, that since the transfer was to occur sometime after 10am, one would expect Ruby to be in position in the basement at that time, not at Western Union.
But if Ruby conspired with the Dallas Police to kill Oswald during the transfer, he wouldn’t have to KNOW when police were moving Oswald if it was understood that police would simply wait for Ruby to get into position before bringing Oswald down.
In order to wait for Ruby to get into position, all police had to do was to delay the transfer by additional interrogation of Oswald on the morning of the transfer until they got the “all set” signal to move him.
The “all set” didn’t mean the transport car was in position because it wasn’t, as is evident in this video.
I suggest that the “all clear” signal meant that Ruby was in position and they could bring Oswald down.
If I’m right about that, the Commission’s supporters’ timing argument is thereby nullified.
I believe that the evidence shows that there was a conspiracy to kill Oswald before police surrendered custody of him to the Sheriff’s Department.
And I am prepared to identify the persons I believe were involved in this conspiracy by name, beginning with the police officers, including the one who planned the transfer.
Police Chief Jesse Curry
Chief Curry, like many of his officers, was not a supporter of President Kennedy. His preference and loyalty was to Lyndon Johnson. At the time a Presidential assassin and cop-killer was loose in his city, Curry’s priority was not to lead his department in the capture of the murderer, but instead to drive Lyndon Johnson to Love Field and to stand by aboard Air Force 1 and be photographed during Johnson’s swearing-in.
There are several reasons why I place Curry in this conspiracy.
1. Curry planned the transfer.
2. Curry who took his phone off the hook and was unavailable to his own department once he went home. This made it impossible for a nighttime transfer when police received death threats against Oswald.
3. Curry’s promise to the press that Oswald would be transferred in front of them meant more than the protection of his prisoner.
4. Curry came into Capt. J.Will Fritz’s office on Sunday morning and told Fritz that everything in the basement was “all set” for the transfer. ( 4 H 233 ) That fact is corroborated by Detective L.C.Graves, who told the Commission that, “Chief Curry told Capt. Fritz that the security was taken care of.” ( 13 H 7 )
5. Curry had a secret meeting off to the side with Fritz and they spoke low enough so that no one else could hear.
Harry Holmes:
“Chief Curry came around the other side of the desk and took Will Fritz over in the corner and they bowed their heads and discussed in an undertone……they were mumbling in an undertone and I didn’t distinguish one thing that was said.” ( 7 H 301 )
Detective L. D. Montgomery:
“…I didn’t hear the Chief say anything because he was talking to the Captain, and when the Chief and the Captain talk — they were kind of talking low and I wasn’t straining my ears to hear…” ( 13 H 26 )
Neither Capt. Fritz nor Chief Curry mentioned this secret conversation in their testimony and neither were asked about it by the Commission’s counsel.
In addition, Detective L.C. Graves, who was outside Fritz’s office, testified that Chief Curry, “made a number of trips there ( to Fritz’s office ) during the time he ( Oswald ) was being interviewed.” ( 13 H 4 )
Was Curry beginning to panic because Ruby had not yet showed up ?
Oswald had been removed from his cell at 9:30 am for a short interrogation before the scheduled transfer at 10 am. But Jack Ruby was not in the basement yet, so the transfer had to be delayed. The excuse for that delay was additional interrogation of Oswald.
This additional interrogation of Oswald was totally unnecessary, because there was no law against the Dallas Police going to the County Jail to question Oswald if they needed to. Fritz admitted such during his testimony. ( 4 H 234 )
So the additional interrogation was unnecessary. The Dallas Police could have transferred Oswald at 10 am as scheduled, except for the absence of Ruby in the basement.
The second police official I believe was involved in a conspiracy to murder Oswald was the one responsible for stalling the transfer until Sunday and on that day until Ruby was in the basement.
Capt. J. Will Fritz
For a police conspiracy to kill Oswald to succeed, there had to be someone in charge who could stall the transfer long enough until Jack Ruby got into the basement.
That man was Capt. Fritz.
According to Harry Holmes, while officers outside his office were getting restless to begin the transfer, Fritz stalled them by saying, “We are going to have a little while to talk. I don’t know how long, because they want to effect this transfer.” ( 7 H 300 )
What did he mean by that ? Effect it in what way ?
He was never asked.
Fritz told many lies to the Commission like when asked if the transfer car was in position when he came out of the jail office.
Mr BALL. Was the car there that you were going to get in ?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes sir. ( 4 H 243 )
It was Fritz who gave the final “OK” for Leavelle and Graves to bring Oswald out of the jail office and into the basement. Even if Fritz didn’t know Ruby by sight, he had a Lieutenant in front of him who did.
Lt. Richard E. Swain, who preceded Fritz into the basement, was never called by the Warren Commission to testify about the transfer.
In this video, we see Lt. Swain enter first, then Capt. Fritz enters the basement, looks in the direction of Jack Ruby and then turns back and nods for Leavelle and Graves to bring out Oswald.
It’s very easy for one to conclude from this video that despite his testimony to the contrary, Capt. Fritz knew who Jack Ruby was. He saw him in the crowd, knew who he was and what he was going to do, and ok’d his men to bring out Oswald.
Fritz delays moving Oswald
Fritz gave different reasons for delaying the transfer. Henry Wade wanted to move Oswald on the evening of November 22, but Fritz told him that “Sheriff Bill Decker did not like for prisoners to be moved in the nighttime.” ( CD 4, pg. 32 )
But there’s other evidence that Decker was not involved in the decision when the transfer was to take place.
In fact, the police department never notified the Sheriff’s department in advance of the decision to move Oswald at 10am Sunday morning. Sheriff Decker expected the move to be made Saturday night.
Decker testified that when he heard from a reporter about the transfer being done at 10 am Sunday morning, he called the police station and was told, “that he wouldn’t be moved that night and that’s all there was to it.” ( 12 H 47 )
However Decker felt about moving a prisoner in the nighttime, it took a back seat to his concern for the safety of the prisoner once threats were received.
It was Decker who suggested that Oswald be moved immediately once he was notified by the FBI that death threats had been made against Oswald.
Mr. DECKER. Yes it was in the morning, 12:30 in the morning.
Mr. HUBERT. It was your suggestion that he should be moved immediately ?
Mr. DECKER. Yes Sir. ( 12 H 49 )
Another reason for delaying the transfer
If Fritz lied to Wade about Decker being against a nighttime transfer, he lied to Curry about not being ready to transfer the prisoner until 10 am Sunday morning.
Chief Curry and Fritz allegedly had a conversation about transferring Oswald at 4 pm on Saturday afternoon, but Fritz said they were still questioning him. It was at that time Fritz agreed that they could transfer him at 10 am on Sunday. ( 4 H 233 )
The excuse that Oswald was not transferred sooner because they need to further question him is, in my opinion, not an excuse at all.
Sheriff Decker testified that Police could have questioned Oswald at the County Jail after the transfer anytime they wanted to. ( 12 H 49 )
Fritz corroborated this when asked what would he have done once the prisoner was transferred and he had more questions. He testified that, “I would have talked to him later in the county jail.” ( 4 H 234 )
So why didn’t they transfer Oswald earlier ? Why wait to do the transfer on Sunday ?
Because Capt. Fritz was getting his orders from a powerful source outside Dallas Police headquarters. And that source sent his representative to the police station to help plan the Sunday transfer, which required the presence of a certain lieutenant in the jail office who would not be back from his days off until Sunday.
Lt. Woodrow Wiggins
In order for this conspiracy to be successful, there had to be a “set of eyes” in the basement who would notify upstairs that Ruby was in position.
Since Oswald was being interrogated on the third floor, Chief Curry needed someone to let him know WHEN Ruby was in position so he could relay that to Fritz. It had to be someone who knew Ruby.
That man was Lt. Woodrow Wiggins, a “floating” supervisor, who on the day of the transfer, was filling in for the jail office supervisor.
Wiggins “had known Jack Ruby for years”, ( 12 H 393 ) and would have been able to tell them when Ruby was in the basement.
Sunday, November 24th was his first day back to work after his own two days off and placed him in the jail office covering for that supervisor’s day off. ( 12 H 389 )
Not only did his assignment in the jail office allow Wiggins to know where Oswald was in the building, it put Wiggins in the perfect position of checking the adjacent basement to see if Ruby was there.
In his testimony, Wiggins admitted that although he had no role in the transfer and did not take part in securing it, he “was in and out of the basement looking it over.” ( 12 H 390 )
Looking it over for what ? Or should I say, for whom ?
He was never asked.
Wiggins testified that he received a call from upstairs saying they were bringing Oswald down and as soon as he hung up, he noticed the indicator lights on the elevator showing it was on its way. ( 12 H 391 ) This would imply that Fritz et al were already on their way down when the call was made.
But the report of Lt. T.L. Baker said that prior to leaving the office, Fritz told a Detective named Baker to call the jail office. During that conversation, Wiggins “said all was clear” and Baker told him they were “leaving with Oswald and to have the cars ready.” ( Dallas Police Box 5, pg. 307 )
This report indicates that Wiggins told them, “all was clear” BEFORE they left Fritz’s office and well enough in advance to move the cars into position. It blows away Wiggins’ account of the call being made as they were on their way.
BTW, neither Lt. Baker nor Detective Baker were called to testify.
Wiggins also testified that once they got off the elevator, Fritz asked him again, “are they ready ?” at which time he stepped out of the door and into the corridor first. He said that although he “could not remember whether or not he answered Fritz”, he was sure if he did answer him, he told them that they were ready. ( 12 H 392 )
I suggest that Wiggins went out the door and into the basement, saw Ruby and told Fritz “they” were ready.
But they weren’t ready, as the cars were not yet in position. So the ready signal could not have been meant for the transfer.
Wiggins didn’t have the cars ready, as evident in the video of Oswald’s murder. Sgt. James Leavelle testified that, “we were given to understand that the car would be across the passageway”. He added that Capt. Fritz said, “Everything is all set”, but he ( Leavelle ) was, “surprised when I walked to the door and the car was not in the spot it should have been.” ( 13 H 17 )
In spite of the car not being in position for the transfer, Fritz, instead of delaying Oswald’s advance into the basement until the car was in position, came into the basement, looked in Jack Ruby’s direction and turned back and nodded for his detectives to bring Oswald into the basement.
To “make sure he didn’t get away”
According to his testimony, Detective L.D. Montgomery was placed by Fritz behind Oswald during the transfer in order to, “make sure he didn’t get away.” ( 13 H 27 )
This of course was in spite of the fact that there were anywhere from 60 to 75 armed police in the basement and Oswald was handcuffed to Leavelle and Graves had his right arm.
Oswald wasn’t going anywhere.
When asked by Counsel Bert Griffin if he felt that his primary reason for being behind Oswald was to prevent him from getting away rather than to prevent anyone from getting at him, Montgomery replied, “keep him from getting away”. ( ibid. )
Montgomery was there to prevent Oswald from breaking loose from Graves and jumping behind Leavelle, which he might have done had he seen Ruby coming at him with a gun.
Montgomery was NOT there to protect the prisoner.
With this configuration, Fritz guaranteed that when Ruby ambushed Oswald, Oswald was boxed in and would have no means to escape.
Oswald had to be killed before the Dallas Police lost custody of him. And that killing had to be done by someone on the outside. Someone who shared the police department’s level of corruption and lack of morals.
Corruption: the foundation for murder
The State of Texas was not without its share of police and political corruption. For example, several officials in Jefferson County, Beaumont and Port Arthur were indicted for corruption in 1962.
In Jefferson County, Sheriff Charles Meyer admitted receiving $ 85,581 in “campaign contributions”, although he ran for sheriff unopposed.
The Chief of Police of Port Arthur also had received $65,000 in “campaign contributions”, although he was appointed, not elected.
Beaumont Police Chief J.H. Mulligan was paid $ 735 a month, but had $40,000 in the bank and owned $ 73,000 worth of property.
Such corruption was not limited to Police Chiefs and County Sheriffs.
Jefferson County District Attorney Ramie Griffin charged between $5,000 and $10,000 to “fix” a relatively unimportant case. ( Farewell America, James Hepburn, Frontiers Publishing Company, 1968, pg. 345 )
Political corruption wasn’t limited to city and county officials.
The Box 13 Scandal was a political scandal that occurred in Jim Wells County, Texas during the Senate election of 1948, regarding disputed votes in a Democratic Senate primary involving Lyndon B. Johnson and Coke Stevenson.
And political corruption was the motive behind the murder of USDA agent Henry Marshall in Texas in 1961.
Police corruption in Dallas
Dallas’s municpal budget was only half of that of Boston. As a result, city employees were dependent on incentives awarded for their obedience and silence. Police were paid by the city leaders to carry out their orders. The District Attorney and municpal Judges were equally corrupt. ( Farewell America, James Hepburn, Frontiers Publishing Company, 1968, pg. 346 )
As an example of how this system worked, the Dallas Citizen’s Council voted a motion of confidence in Police Chief Curry for his “good work” on November 22, 1963.
Generally, police corruption comes in many forms, one of which is the acceptance by law enforcement officers of gratuities. Although not illegal, many departments frown on their officers receiving gifts or food for free because receiving such items can effect how an officer handles a certain situation.
For example, if an officer has a case involving someone who has given him gifts in the past, his judgement could be influenced in favor of that gift giver, even though that gift giver may be in the wrong.
In that sense, it may not be illegal to receive a gift, there is certainly a question of ethics involved.
But that didn’t stop FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover from engaging in corrupt practices. From all-expense-paid free three-month vacations at oil man Clint Richardson’s La Jolla Motel in California to no-lose investments in oil drilling operations, Hoover was the epitome of corrupt Washington.
One of these businessmen who lavished gifts on Dallas officials was a strip club owner named Jack Ruby.
According to ex-Ruby employees, many of the Dallas Police officers frequented Ruby’s strip club. And not only police officers, but also county officials, including District Attorney Henry Wade.
Mr. DULLES. You hadn’t known him before?
Mr. WADE. I had never known him, to my knowledge. ( 5 H 223 )
“I met Henry Wade sometime back, and I knew he would recognize me” ( Testimony of Jack Ruby, 5 H 189 )
Tom Brown, an attendant at the Nichols parking Garage (adjacent to the Carousel Club ), believed that at about 1:30 p.m. he heard Ruby mention Chief Curry’s name in a telephone conversation from the garage.
Garnett C. Hallmark, general manager of the garage, then heard Ruby address someone at the other end of the telephone as “Ken” and caught portions of a conversation concerning the transfer of Oswald. Hallmark said Ruby never called Oswald by name but used the pronoun “he” and remarked to the recipient of the call, “you know I’ll be there.
Ken Dowe, a KLIF announcer….confirmed that he was probably the person to whom Hallmark and Brown overheard Ruby speaking. In one call to Dowe, Ruby asked whether the station knew when Oswald would be moved and, in another, he stated he was going to attempt to locate Henry Wade. ( Report, pg 346 )
Observing Ike Pappas, ( a reporter for New York radio station WNEW ) holding a telephone line open and attempting to get the attention of District Attorney Wade, Ruby directed Wade to Pappas, who proceeded to interview the district attorney.
Seth Kantor testified that Ike Pappas told him that “the D.A. seemed to know Mr. Ruby”. ( 15 H 91 )
Ruby then called KLIF….and offered to secure an interview with Wade; he next summoned Wade to his phone, whereupon KLIF recorded a telephone interview with the district attorney.
A few minutes later, Ruby encountered Russ Knight, a reporter from KLIF who had left the station for the police department at the beginning of Ruby’s second telephone call. Ruby directed Knight to Wade and waited a short distance away while the reporter conducted another interview with the district attorney. ( Report, pg 342, 15 H 364 )
Russ Knight testified…….”he seemed to know Wade”. ( 15 H 268 )
Ruby drove to the Dallas Times-Herald, where he talked for about 15 minutes with composing room employee Roy Pryor, who had just finished a shift at 4 a.m….. Pryor testified that Ruby explicitly stated to him that he believed he was in good favor with the district attorney. ( WCR pg. 344 )
Fredric Rheinstein, a Producer-Director for NBC News, testified that ….. Ruby was alleged to have stolen a chicken dinner intended for the news crew members and was seen with it going into a third floor office where Henry Wade was working. Ruby later came out, followed by Wade 10 minutes later. Rheinstein testified that the cameraman and stage manager said that
Ruby told them that he “knew Wade personally and he could get some information for us or he could get him to come out and talk to us”. ( 15 H 356-357 )
Ruby stole the chicken dinner for Henry Wade to eat.
As has already been mentioned, according to ex-Ruby employee Nancy Hamilton, Wade was a patron of Ruby’s strip club and drank there for free.
Wade and Ruby knew each other.
These “customers” were fed drinks “on the house” and his gracious nature with booze and his providing women made Jack Ruby a popular figure with the police.
It was this cozy relationship, between Ruby and the police, that gave him carte blanche access to police headquarters and ( in the end ) provided him with the opportunity to kill Oswald.
Jack Ruby’s access to Police Headquarters
“Not all cops are bent, but all departments have bent cops.”― Abhijit Naskar, Karadeniz Chronicle: The Novel
From the time of Oswald’s arrest, police headquarters was off limits to anyone except police officers and reporters. While the hallway on the third floor ( the location of the Homicide Bureau ) was mobbed, reporters were required to produce identification before being allowed into the building.
Pete Fisher was a photographer for UPI and told the FBI that, “on the evening of November 22, 1963…uniformed officers were checking credentials of newsmen on the first floor of the Police and Courts Building before newsmen were allowed to take the elevator to the third floor. Fisher said that after arrival on the third floor, all newmen’s credentials were checked again by uniformed police officers.” ( 25 H 178 )
Ronald Jenkins, a KBOX radio reporter , told the FBI that on that same evening, the 22nd, he saw Jack Ruby on the “third floor of the police station”. ( 25 H 178-179 )
Photographs of the third floor hallway prove Jenkins was correct as Ruby can be seen milling around in the hallway as Jenkins described.
How did Ruby get through two different ID checkpoints, one on the first floor and one on the third floor ?
According to witnesses, security on Sunday, the 24th was no less.
In that same FBI interview Jenkins said that on November 24th, that he, “observed policemen, both in uniform and in civilian clothing checking the identification of persons entering the police department.” and that “his idenitfication was checked on several occasions”. ( ibid. )
Meaning police were checking IDs of newsmen even though they were already in the building.
And not only newsmen.
Carl Thompson was an installer for Southwestern Bell who was called to the police station to install more phone lines in Chief Curry’s office. At 10:30 am, he rode the elevator from the third floor down to the basement. When he arrived in the basement, “he was required to identify himself by an unknown officer in police uniform by exhibiting his telephone company identification card. The officer also looked through his tool pouch.” ( 24 H 410 )
This is not the description of the type of security that allows a man to walk down a ramp unseen and unchallenged. A man who Chief Curry claimed was known by only four Dallas Police officers.
This is the kind of security that is tight for those NOT known to police.
The fact that Jack Ruby could penetrate this level of security and make it all the way up to the third floor indicates, in spite of their denials, that he had a special relationship with the Dallas Police and DA Wade.
And that relationship provided the opportunity to use Ruby to ambush Oswald in the basement of Police Headquarters.
Setting up Oswald for the kill
While access to the building was tight, keeping people away from the prisoner was not the Police Department’s first priority. One would think that if Oswald had ANY information relative to the assassination of the President, the police would not have been so non-chalant about protecting him.
They paraded him through the hallways mobbed with with press people, they produced him in a midnight press showing and publicized the time of his transfer.
Knowing the public atmosphere in Dallas after the assassination, exposing Oswald to any audience, whether newsmen, police officers or whomever, placed his life in danger.
Not only was there a lack of security around the prisoner, there was a lack of Communication between the Police Dept. and the Sheriff’s Office as to when the transfer would be.
Sheriff Decker testified he found out “about 9 o’clock” on Saturday evening that the transfer was going to be “around 10am” Sunday morning through a news reporter. ( 12 H 47 )
He was never notified by the Police Dept. although he did call them to confirm the rumor he had heard. He testified that, “it was confirmed that he wouldn’t be moved that night and that’s all there was to it.” ( ibid. )
How could they forget to notify the Sheriff of the 10am transfer on Sunday, especially when he was expecting a transfer Saturday night ?
Because the police were planning for Oswald’s murder, not his transfer. Decker was out of the loop for the murder. By 9pm Saturday night, it had already been decided that Oswald was to be killed while in police custody before he was turned over to the Sheriff. Under those circumstances, there was no need to notify the sheriff of the transfer until the last minute.
Normally, the Sheriff would make the transfer, but on Sunday morning, Chief Curry called Sheriff Decker and told him the police dept. would handle the transfer.
Oswald’s fate was sealed. The same police dept. that provided protection for President Kennedy would now provide protection for him.
And the result would be the same.
Death Threats
A transfer after dark would have been the right way to do it, especially since the Dallas Police had received death threats against Oswald for the 48 hours or so he was in their custody.
One such death threat was called in to Dallas Police desk officer Billy Grammar, who said that after Ruby killed Oswald, he realized the voice of the caller as Jack Ruby.
In fact, Sheriff Bill Decker testified that when his office had been notified by the FBI of a death threat against Oswald at 12:30 am on Sunday, he called the Dallas Police and recommended to Lt. Frazier that they transfer Oswald “immediately”. ( 12 H 49 )
Frazier first called Capt. Fritz who suggested he contact Chief Curry by phone. Frazier could not reach the Chief because his phone was off the hook, so he called Capt. Fritz back and suggested they “leave him ( Oswald ) where he was”. ( 4 H 233 )
Not only was a public transfer in broad daylight bad for security reasons, announcing the time of the transfer would benefit any would-be assailant.
On the morning of the 24th, the head of the Dallas Secret Service Forrest Sorrels suggested to Capt. Fritz that Oswald not be moved at an announced time.
“…I remarked to Captain Fritz that I were he, I would not remove Oswald from the City Hall or City Jail to County Jail at an announced time; that I would take him out at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning when there was no one around.” ( 13 H 63 )
But there was no way they were going to transfer Oswald in the middle of the night because everything had been “set up” to kill Oswald on Sunday morning.
The Sunday transfer
I see two reasons for the Sunday transfer.
First, the world would be mourning the death of the President and glued to their televison sets for his funeral. This distraction would provide little interest or sympathy for the murder of his alleged assassin.
In fact, hundreds of telegrams sent to Ruby while he was in the the Dallas County jail congratulated him on killing “the President’s assassin.”
The second reason for a Sunday transfer was that the conspirators would have a man in the jail office, ( Lt. Wiggins ) who knew Jack Ruby and would let them know when Ruby was in position in the basement.
Oswald would be transferred with minimal protection and maximum “world exposure” in accordance with someone else’s directions.
And that someone else, according to a Dallas police detective, was in Washington.
It has been said that, “politics and protection don’t mix” and this is just another example of that.
The transfer of Oswald would not be based on protecting the prisoner, but rather on “political considerations”.
“Political considerations”
Chief Curry was getting political pressure from Washington to expose Oswald to the press. This pressure came through City Manager Elgin Crull. Crull denied giving the Chief any orders with respect to the handling of Oswald, but admitted under oath that, “….I agreed with the Chief that we would try to cooperate with the press….that the police department not be put in a position in which later people could charge that this man had been beaten, that he had been kept under cover and had not been allowed to see him. “ ( 15 H 142 )
But according to these Dallas detectives, Curry and Fritz wanted to transfer Oswald at night but pressure “from Washington” dictated that Oswald be given “world exposure”.
Were those people in Washington coordinating something with their friends in Dallas ? Jack Ruby seemed to think there were people in “very high positions” who had used him to kill Oswald.
Who were these people in very high positions ?
Ruby’s “people in very high positions”
While he was in the County Jail, Ruby wrote several letters to fellow inmate Thomas Miller. In one of those letters Ruby may have revealed the identity of one of those “people in high places”.
After mentioning Lamar Hunt, Ruby wrote, “….who would have dream (sic ) that the mother f**ker was a Nazi and found me as a perfect setup for a frame. It was perfect for them. Remember, they had the President killed…..“
Ruby allegedly went to the offices of Hunt Oil on the day before the assassination, November 21st, to escort a woman to a “job interview”.
How far did the corruption between Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police go and was H.L. Hunt involved ?
Neither of the federal investigations into this killing ever pursued this.
And Ruby wasn’t the only one with a connection to Hunt. No less than Lee Harvey Oswald himself had a connection to the Hunts.
“Dear Mr. Hunt”
Oswald’s “Dear Mr. Hunt”, letter of November 8th is another piece of the puzzle.
The letter was received by publisher of the Midlothian Mirror, Penn Jones, Jr., and it had been mailed from Mexico.
According to John Curington, Personal Assistant for H.L. Hunt, the letter actually showed up in Hunt’s interoffice mail system shortly after the assassination. Curington said he turned it over to the FBI.
If this is true, it means that a. ) the note was certainly written to H.L. Hunt and not E. Howard Hunt and b.) it confirms that the FBI kept it secret for fourteen years !
Curington claimed that Hunt feared that Oswald was possibly a listener to his Life Line radio program or was a reader of Facts Forum, his right wing newsletter. Both of these vehicles spread his pro-fascist and racists views as well as his hatred of Kennedy.
For this reason, Curington claims, Hunt arranged to have Oswald killed.
In 1977, author Willem Oltmans told the HSCA that CIA asset/ oil geologist George De Mohrenschildt admitted to him that he, De Mohrenschildt, was the go-between H.L. Hunt and Oswald. ( New York Times, 4/4/77 )
De Mohrenschildt was connected to the CIA through J. Walton Moore, the head of the CIA’s Domestic Services Division in Dallas. ( According to a declassified CIA document, obtained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, J. Walton Moore was an agent of the CIA’s Domestic Contacts Division in Dallas. )
De Mohrenschildt’s connection to H.L. Hunt was confirmed by one of his longtime friends, offshore oil engineer George Kitchel, who told the FBI that de Mohrenschildt counted among his good friends oil baron H.L. Hunt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt
De Mohrenschildt was also connected to the owner of the Texas School Book Depository building. He also joined the right-wing Texas Crusade for Freedom, whose members included the owner of the TSBD building David Harold Byrd. ( ibid. )
De Mohrenschildt’s wife and daughter would later say that it had been he who had secured the job for Oswald at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. ( Summers, Anthony (1998). Not in Your Lifetime. New York: Marlowe & Company. p. 154. ISBN 1-56924-739-0 )
In February 1963, George de Mohrenschildt introduced Marina Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald to Ruth Paine. Ruth Paine was the one who called Roy Truly and got Oswald an interview at the Texas School Book Depository.
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKdemohrenschildt.htm
Oltmans also told the HSCA that de Mohrenschildt admitted knowing Jack Ruby and stated that he had been in Jack Ruby’s club.
Oltmans’ testimony was never published by the HSCA.
In this video, Jack Ruby implies that Kennedy was killed by Dallas right-wingers who preferred Lyndon Johnson in the White House.
According to Curington, one of those Dallas right-wingers who preferred Johnson was H.L.Hunt.
If H.L. Hunt was involved in a conspiracy to murder Oswald, the man who would have been his liason between himself and the Dallas Police would have been John Curington.
Curington claims that Hunt was behind the killing of Oswald because he was afraid of an Oswald trial, where Oswald would blame his actions on things he heard on Hunt’s programs.
Hunt was also connected with Dallas Police Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz.
In this video interview with Mitchell Whitington, Curington connects Capt. Fritz with Hunt by describing him as “a good friend of Mr. Hunt’s”.
Was Curington involved in the plans to move Oswald on Sunday ?
Curington’s arrival that the DPD headquarters was around the same time Curry and Fritz decided that Oswald will be moved on Sunday around 10 am.
How much of that discussion was Curington involved in ?
He was never asked.
Curington says that later that evening he reported back to Hunt about the security surrounding Oswald, he was ordered by Hunt to go to mob boss Joe Civello’s house and ask him to come to Hunt’s house in the middle of the night.
If Curington’s account is true, this evidence establishes connections which are mind-boggling.
The CIA, through De Mohrenschildt, is connected to H.L.Hunt, Oswald, Ruth Paine and Jack Ruby.
H.L. Hunt is connected to the Dallas Police, the CIA, Lee Harvey Oswald, and organized crime.
There are connections between the Dallas Police and the CIA and connections between H.L. Hunt and the Dallas FBI office, both of which I will cover in the next part.
More importantly, if Curington’s account is true, the murder of Oswald was a murder-for-hire bankrolled by Hunt and with Civello providing the killer ( Ruby ) .
Putting the pieces together
Of course, this whole scenario depends on Curington’s account being true.
If it is true, the conspiracy to kill Oswald began in Washington. Johnson’s aides made sure that Oswald was exposed. They then coordinated with H.L. Hunt, who sent Curington on Saturday evening to get the “details” on security.
Curington claims that he arrived at the Dallas Police Station late afternoon/early evening and reported back to Hunt around midnight.
That’s a lot of time to be checking on security.
I believe that there’s more to the story that Curington is NOT saying.
I believe that Curington brought a message from Hunt for Fritz to agree not to move Oswald until told to do so. On Sunday morning when he arrived at work, Wiggins was ordered to give the “all set” signal to Fritz when he saw Ruby in the basement.
Although the transfer was scheduled for 10 am, Oswald would not be moved until Ruby was in position.
I believe Wiggins was, “in and out of the basement looking it over” that morning for Jack Ruby.
When Fritz came out of the jail office, he looked in the direction of Ruby and then signalled for his detectives to bring Oswald out.
Rich men like Hunt had control over politicians, judges, DAs, sheriffs, police officers and lawyers through campaign contributions, job placement and bank loans.
Hunt owned Dallas’ Mercantile Bank.
And if you don’t believe that he had that kind of power, imagine the amount of power it takes to summon the reputed head of Organized Crime in your city to your house in the middle of the night and to have him respond like a schoolboy being summoned to the Principal’s Office.
That, my friends, is POWER.
Associations: the key to conspiracy
James Wilcott, who was a paymaster at the CIA for the “Oswald Project”, told the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 that the CIA was in , “as thick as thieves” with the Dallas Police.
Another of those CIA connections in Dallas was H.L. Hunt. Hunt wasn’t only connected to the CIA through his oil business. According to Paul Rothermel, Hunt’s Chief Of Security, Hunt also “had taken over the Dallas FBI office” and that, “they were in his pocket.”
If that’s true and the Dallas FBI was doing Hunt’s bidding, it opens up a whole new world of questions regarding the relationship between H.L. Hunt, the Dallas FBI and Oswald.
Ruby’s motive: money
I believe Hunt gave Civello cash out of his home safe to have Oswald killed. Civello then forwarded the plan and $ 3,000 of the money to Ruby and gave the “contract” to him.
Doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but in 1963, $3,000 was the equivalent of almost $30,000 in today’s dollars.
Ruby’s friends Jack Kelly and Paul Jones told the FBI that Ruby would do anything for money.
The facts are that Ruby was in dire financial straits.
According to the Warren Report, the man who conducted his banking from his “pockets and the trunk of his car,” ran up an estimated $50,000 debt in legal fees fighting the strippers’ union and at the time of his death in Dallas, owed the Federal Government about $44,000 in back taxes.
This is beside the $15,000 he owed one of his brothers. He was indebted to the rest of his family as well.
Ruby pal Harry Hall told the FBI that, “Ruby was the type who was interested in any way to make money and seemed to have good contacts with the police. He said he could not conceive of Ruby doing anything out of patriotism.” ( 23 H 363 )
The amount of Ruby’s debt would have been “chicken feed” for a man like Hunt. He could have guaranteed to pay off those debts with no problem.
And using his influence with the DA, the cops and the judges in Dallas County, he had the power to get Ruby “off the hook” for the murder. That guarantee could have been made as well as part of the contract.
In fact, public opinion was on the side of Ruby. Telegrams came from all over the world into the Dallas County Jail congratulating Ruby for killing the President’s assassin.
The theory that Ruby was paid by someone on the political right to eliminate Oswald is not so far fetched as one would expect.
CIA asset Gerry Patrick Hemming claimed that he was approached in person “many times” by right wingers to kill JFK for money.
Both Joe and Sam Campisi were underbosses of Joe Civello. They visited Ruby while he was in jail and their visits with him were private.
I believe the purpose of these visits were to remind Ruby to keep his mouth shut about his role and those of Civello and of the Hunts in the conspiracy to kill Oswald.
If this theory is correct, Ruby would have realized that his life depended on keeping silent.
“Gentlemen, my life is in danger here”
Whatever Jack Ruby knew, he wanted to say. He wanted to tell his story, but he couldn’t tell it in Dallas.
Ruby said, “Gentlemen, my life is in danger here”. He went on to say. “I may not live tomorrow to give any further testimony.” And that, “I want to get out to the public….why my act was committed but it can’t be said here.” ( 5 H 196 )
Why not ? What was it about telling his story in Dallas that had Jack Ruby fearing for hs life ? Was it that he could wind up dead in his cell from a phone call to the police dept. by H.L. Hunt, or Joe Civello ?
During a break in his trial, Jack Ruby is interviewed in the hallway of the courthouse by Harry Kendall. Ruby tells Kendall that there were people in very high places responsible for putting him in his situation and who will “never let the truth come above board to the world.”
Jack Leon Ruby died of a pulmonary embolism on January 3, 1967 at Parkland Hospital, the same facility where Oswald and Kennedy died. He was buried beside his parents in the Westlawn Cemetery in Norridge, Illinois.
H.L. Hunt: the man behind the conspiracy to kill Oswald ?
The final question remains then, could H.L. Hunt have been that ruthless to have Oswald killed in cold blood ?
John Curington said he was.
Russell Ross Farrell thought so as well. He was a retired Commander of the Navy Reserve in California who became acquainted with persons of the “far right persuasion” after his retirement. He told the FBI that Hunt was, “so violently anti-administration as to be capable of anything”. Farrell also told the FBI that he believed that Hunt possibly, “had a hand in the killing of Kennedy and the murder of Oswald.” ( Oswald 201 file, Volume 8, section 15, pg. 311 )
The murder of USDA agent Henry Marshall in 1961 proved that a well-connected person could get away with murder in the state of Texas.
And no one was better connected in Dallas than Hunt.
Marshall’s murderer, an associate of Lyndon Johnson, got away with a five year suspended sentence and served NO jail time thanks to the intervention of Johnson.
Sentences are issued by judges. Some of those judges are elected and some of them are appointed by politicians. Either way, campaign contributions can have an effect on the “justice system.
In this case, the perpetrators got away with two murders, Kennedy’s and Oswald’s, because they had friends in the White House and FBI whose jobs they saved, and who showed their appreciation by not allowing them to be brought to justice.
After the assassination, H.L.Hunt and General Walker fled to Hunt’s estate in Mexico and although he was under the watchful eye of the FBI, Hunt was never interviewed by the Bureau and was never called to testify for the Warren Commission.
Mr. Hunt died in 1974, before the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations were formed.
Conclusion
The Dallas Police framed Oswald while he was alive. Once he was dead, President Johnson in effect, delegated that responsibility to the FBI. The Commission took it one step further by publishing opinions based on similarities and possibilities, rather than on the truth.
Evidence that pointed to Oswald’s innocence was ignored or suppressed by the FBI, which controlled who did and who didn’t get to testify.
This was NOT a criminal investigation by any stretch of the imagination. This was the framing of an innocent man for crimes he did not commit by those who wanted Kennedy out of office.
The coverup began with a phone call from Lyndon Johnson to Dallas Police Homicide Capt. J. Will Fritz, where according to Fritz, Johnson told him, “You’ve got your man, investigation’s over.”
Whether Johnson did this to cover his own complicity in the crime or if he was trying to avoid a war with the Soviet Union, this order effectively started the wheels of a coverup in motion.
Not only did the coverup eliminate any chance of an honest investigation, it promoted and supported the framing of Oswald.
This framing was instigated by anti-Kennedy forces in the Dallas Police, the Dallas FBI and their allies in the post office in Dallas. The police staged unfair lineups designed to influence the witnesses into choosing Oswald. They questioned Oswald without benefit of counsel and kept him communicado until such a time as they were sure he and members of his family wouldn’t be able to call the lawyer of his choosing.
They lied to the reporters, they lied to the FBI and they lied to the Commission.
Local members of the ACLU who tried to see Oswald were discouraged by police from doing so.
The official lie was fueled by an FBI director who proclaimed Oswald guilty before any evidence was in. He resisted the formation of a Presidential Commission and when he couldn’t prevent it, he decided to control it.
He did this by controlling who the Commission saw and deposed. His agents threatened and harassed witnesses into changing their stories. Those who would not “cooperate” were simply ignored or had their versions suppressed. Some had their statements altered.
Hoover’s motive to coverup the crime may well have been to protect his ass and the Bureau’s reputation.
Its Dallas bureau had kept tabs on the “patsy”prior to the murder for H.L. Hunt. Corruption at its best.
This would have been enough for Hoover to wrestle the investigation away from the Dallas Police. It would also explain why Hoover was enraged with Dallas Agent James Hosty giving the police too much information about the patsy, Oswald.
Two days after leading President Kennedy into an ambush in Dealey Plaza, the Dallas Police led Lee Harvey Oswald into an ambush in the basement of police headquarters.
I believe that H.L.Hunt conspired with his pals on the Dallas Police to kill Oswald. The motive being that the police did not have a case against him and it had been declared in Washington that he was guilty.
Thanks to the involvement of H.L.Hunt, attempt to kill Oswald would be successful on Sunday.
Ruby was allowed into the basement of the police station before the transfer. Police simply waited for him to get into position. Then Oswald was brought down and presented to him clear and open and he could walk right up to him point blank and shoot him without hitting any officers.
The “all clear” signal to bring Oswald out didn’t mean the car was in position ( which it wasn’t ), it meant that RUBY was in position.
The important part of this conspiracy to kill Oswald was that the killing HAD to be done before the police surrendered custody of Oswald to the Sheriff’s Department. Once the Sheriff’s Department took custody of the prisoner, the Police Department had no more control of the situation.
After the shooting, Oswald was transported to Parkland Hospital, where doctors operated on him using little or no anesthesia and where he later died.
With him died the truth about the assassination.