Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?

[John Tonkovich]

Let's assume that after five decades that no one can ever prove with absolute certainty how these books were returned.  Now what?  It does not mean by default that Oswald was in New Orleans and returned them.  There are any number of plausible explanations that do not involve Oswald.  Those have been noted several times.  The evidence demonstrates that Oswald was elsewhere.  He can't be in two places at once.  So someone returned them on his behalf or there was some delay in processing that none of us can ever uncover even if we dwell on this pedantic issue until the end of times.

plausible explanations  ok.

Someone else returned the books.  Not "plausible".  Easiest, simplest explanation. 
Occam and all that. 
Good enough for the Warren Commission to accept.

Now, who was that?
Why, if Oswald allegedly believes he is off to Mexico City, Cuba, USSR, does he, or some acquaintance(s) give a rat's a@# about library books?

[Charles Collins]

plausible explanations  ok.

Someone else returned the books.  Not "plausible".  Easiest, simplest explanation. 
Occam and all that. 
Good enough for the Warren Commission to accept.

Now, who was that?
Why, if Oswald allegedly believes he is off to Mexico City, Cuba, USSR, does he, or some acquaintance(s) give a rat's a@# about library books?

I’m pretty sure that it has been decided that the invisible (or visible if you prefer) pink unicorns returned the books...

[Steve M. Galbraith]

October 3, 1963 was a Thursday and according to various pieces of evidence - eyewitness and documents - Oswald was in Dallas after having returned from Mexico City.

He checked in that morning afternoon at the local YMCA - he registered as a serviceman to avoid paying the registration fee - then went to the Texas Unemployment Division Employment Commission to obtain an unemployment check (it was for $6) and to get help finding a job. He had been there before in 1962 when he first arrived in Ft. Worth from the Soviet Union. He and/or someone else (the writing looks like it was two people or was done over numerous months) filled out or updated the various forms and listed the Paine address as his home address.

A work history/resume form was filled out/updated at the unemployment office and is here (a 10-3-63 date is on the bottom right): https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0208a.htm

He listed the Paine address in Irving as his home (a 10-3-63 date is at the top): https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0106a.htm

He signed the application/resume/work history here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0106b.htm

Oswald's claims records showing he received a $6 unemployment claim on October 3, 1963 is here:  https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0105b.htm

Shorter: Oswald was in Dallas on October 3.

If the real Oswald was in New Orleans dropping off library books then he was impersonated in Mexico City and then impersonated here in Dallas for some inexplicable reason. Or he was really in Dallas and the October 3 date indicates someone else returned them or some other innocent explanation such as they were processed later. Which makes more sense?

[Jerry Organ]

The "Return Date" would have been stamped on the card in the back of the book when it was checked out. Typically a date two weeks from the day it was checked out. It was not necessarily the date the book was actually returned.

[John Mytton]

The "Return Date" would have been stamped on the card in the back of the book when it was checked out. Typically a date two weeks from the day it was checked out. It was not necessarily the date the book was actually returned.

 

JohnM

[Charles Collins]

The "Return Date" would have been stamped on the card in the back of the book when it was checked out. Typically a date two weeks from the day it was checked out. It was not necessarily the date the book was actually returned.

That makes sense and agrees with the titles of the respective columns in the list in the original post of this thread. The other column title reads “date would have been checked out.” Good work Jerry!

[John Mytton]

That makes sense and agrees with the titles of the respective columns in the list in the original post of this thread. The other column title reads “date would have been checked out.” Good work Jerry!

Yep!





JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

The document doesn’t say “date due”, it says ”return date”.