O. H. LEE

[Hank Sienzant]

Yeah, your "answer" was that the examination was "Johnson said so".

Nope. I'm saying you're quibbling over the language in the report. The evidence cited is Johnson's testimony, which wasn't an examination. I freely admitted that. I did point out the evidence before us is Johnson's testimony and the document itself, which is the business record of the Johnson's boarding house. Both those items would be admissible in a court case. Your opinions would not.

I'm claiming no such thing.

You wrote the above in response to my post that "Here, you're claiming the Commission should have ignored the evidence and reached a conclusion contrary to the evidence they had before them, as you ignore the evidence and reach a contrary conclusion below."

And you absolutely did claim that, because you claimed: " I'm surmising that this is not a "register" and Oswald didn't write O.H. Lee on it.... I'm also surmising that the the Warren Commission falsely claimed that "further examination" was done."

So if you're NOT claiming the Warren Commission should have ignored the evidence before it and concluded otherwise, are you saying the Commission reached the correct conclusion?
Or is there some middle ground? Or are you arguing that the Commission should have investigated this further?

Isn't it a given that the current state of the evidence is never enough to satisfy a conspiracy theorist? So the Warren Commission didn't investigate sufficiently, the HSCA didn't investigate sufficiently, the Justice Department didn't investigate sufficiently, NARA didn't investigate sufficiently... no matter what, CTs always need more evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion.
 

You are basing a conclusion (namely that Oswald intentionally used a fake name at the Beckley house) based solely on Johnson's claim that he filled out this "register" in that name.

 
Because that's the evidence before us. And the document. And the fact that she had no known reason to lie about this. And the fact we know Oswald was living there, but he was NOT living there under his own name. We know all this from the available evidence. Like the testimony of the housekeeper, who recognized Oswald as a boarder she knew as O.H.Lee when he showed up on 11/22/63 at the rooming house, from the testimony of Mrs. Johnson, who testified Oswald signed the ledger O.H.Lee, and from the testimony of Mrs. Paine and Mrs. Oswald who testified when they tried to reach Oswald at the rooming house by the number he left in Ruth's phone book, he couldn't be reach and was told there was no Mr. Oswald at that location.

Oswald's interrogators claim that Oswald said she misunderstood him when he gave he his name.  That's evidence too.

No, that's hearsay. And don't some CTs - perhaps yourself included - allege the interrogators who wrote those reports were part of the cover-up or conspiracy? For example, Harry Holmes is alleged to have forged the money order by some, so we can disregard anything Holmes wrote. So either the interrogators had no reason to lie and we accept the documents they wrote after the fact as accurate as possible, or we disregard everything they wrote because they are part of of the conspiracy. But you can't have it both ways, and too often CTs want to have it both ways -- draw conclusions from the evidence as it exists but then discard the evidence as a falsification. So we have some CTs arguing the Z-film shows the Governor and the President were hit too close together to be separate shots (hence two shooters) but some CTs also arguing the Z-film has been altered.

No, that won't fly.  There is no evidence -- even "Johnson said so" evidence -- that each renter had a separate page like this.

Again, it's my conjecture -- a conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information -- based on the available evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. The one page submitted into evidence does NOT show any other boarder's room number or name. It shows only the O.H.Lee name and room 0. Therefore, the other boarders must have had other pages, and perhaps a separate page for each. That's the easiest way to organize it, I would think. If you can think of a better way, I'd love to hear it. By keeping each lodger's payments separated as I suggest, you also maintain the privacy of each lodger, and prevent one lodger from seeing that one renter is in arrears or is paying less for his room. But again, there is no need for a business to document its entire set of business records when they provide the testimony and the document(s) in question concerning the one person under investigation. 

Why don't you tell us why my reasonable conjecture based on the available evidence is an issue for you? Or even worth discussing? Why is how the Johnson's maintained their business records something you need to determine or even discuss? Better yet, why don't you tell us how you reached the conclusion it was "..a list of payments thrown together after the fact in one sitting." That's your stated conclusion - based on what evidence?

Remember we got here because of this exchange:
You: "To me it doesn't look like a "register" at all, but a list of payments thrown together after the fact in one sitting."
Me: "Nobody cares what it looks like to you. It might be one page from a notebook - it looks like each boarder had a page. Oswald certainly had his own. Business records are acceptable as evidence. And this was the rooming house's business record. It wasn't a big business, it was one home with multiple rooms being rented by the week. That home was in the Johnson for over 50 years since the assassination. You don't get to tell the Johnsons how they should maintain their business records."
You: "Really?  Let's see the other ones."
Me: "I am surmising [should be 'conjecturing'] there is one page per lodger from the evidence on that "O.H.Lee" page - it has Oswald's payments listed by week and "Room 0" at the top. Since there are no other entries for other lodgers on that sheet, it stands to reason that the Johnsons tracked the lodgers by room and by lodger and most likely one room/lodger per page. Oswald was in room 0 and had a page to himself. I trust I didn't lose you along the way with that reasoning (but while I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you. You have to do that on your own (and while not doing an imitation of a drowning man, either)."

Besides, is this supposed "alias" supposed to have any bearing on who killed Kennedy?

It does not establish Oswald's guilt nor his innocence. I already said that.

Hank

[Walt Cakebread]

...And then published it where anyone could see it. In the Warren Commission volumes of evidence. Hilarious. What a great way to keep it a secret. Publish it in a Government document that anyone could view at their local library or university, or even purchase from the Government Printing Office.

Hank

Ha,ha,ha,....Hee,hee,hee....  It was NOT stamped "TOP SECRET"  by the WC..... It was Stamped by some "investigator"( conspirator)   The WC lawyer may have realized how silly that stamp was and printed it in a obscure place in the volumes....

[Hank Sienzant]

Yes.  My reason is that the letters on Johnson's "ledger" look nothing like the way Oswald wrote his Ls and Os in the known samples of his signature and despite what the WC claimed, no examination was done on it.

So your argument is that Johnson lied when she claimed Oswald signed that ledger page. And that, if Oswald was going under an alias, he wouldn't try to disguise his handwriting in any fashion by perhaps signing "O.H.Lee" differently. Tell us how you reached that conclusion.

So let's start here: Why don't you tell us what possible reason Mrs. Johnson had to lie about the name and who put it on the ledger?

And how it was that Oswald, who Johnson testified told her his name was Mr.Lee, wasn't going by an alias despite the evidence to the contrary.

And why Lee got upset for nothing on that Tuesday or Wednesday night before the assassination when he spoke to Marina and demanded Marina remove his phone number from Ruth Paine's address book:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. RANKIN. Did you understand that he had used any assumed name about going to Mexico?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. He never told you anything of that kind?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. After Lee returned from Mexico, I lived in Dallas, and Lee gave me his phone number and then when he changed his apartment--Lee lived in Dallas, and he gave me his phone number. And then when he moved, he left me another phone number.
And once when he did not come to visit during the weekend, I telephoned him and asked for him by name rather, Ruth telephoned him and it turned out there was no one there by that name. When he telephoned me again on Monday, I told him that we had telephoned him but he was unknown at that number.
Then he said that he had lived there under an assumed name. He asked me to remove the notation of the telephone number in Ruth's phone book, but I didn't want to do that. I asked him then, "Why did you give us a phone number, when we do call we cannot get you by name?"
He was very angry, and he repeated that I should remove the notation of the phone number from the phone book. And, of course, we had a quarrel. I told him that this was another of his foolishness, some more of his foolishness. I told Ruth Paine about this. It was incomprehensible to me why he was so secretive all the time.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he give you any explanation of why he was using an assumed name at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said that he did not want his landlady to know his real name because she might read in the paper of the fact that he had been in Russia and that he had been questioned.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say about that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Nothing. And also he did not want the FBI to know where he lived.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you why he did not want the FBI to know where he lived?
Mrs. OSWALD. Because their visits were not very pleasant for him and he thought that he loses jobs because the FBI visits the place of his employment.
== UNQUOTE ==

You will note the evidence all points to Oswald using an alias and then telling three different stories about this "O.H.Lee" name:

• To Mrs. Johnson, he told her it was his name, and he signed the ledger thusly.
• To his interrogators, he claimed Mrs. Johnson misunderstood.
• To his own wife, he admitted he did not want his landlady to know his real name and admitted he used the false name purposefully.

Good luck explaining all that away. I know, everybody lied except Archangel Oswald. Even when the evidence indicates Oswald gave three mutually contradictory stories.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

Ha,ha,ha,....Hee,hee,hee....  It was NOT stamped "TOP SECRET"  by the WC..... It was Stamped by some "investigator"( conspirator)

Evidence that it was stamped that way by a conspirator? Suggestion: Try not to use circular reasoning to justify your claim.

The WC lawyer may have realized how silly that stamp was and printed it in a obscure place in the volumes....

Obscure place? They listed it as "Johnson Exhibit A" and the footnote leads directly to her testimony and to the Commission Exhibit.

But your argument reduces to: The Warren Commission did nothing wrong. They published the document. It was other unidentified really bad people who did the bad stuff here. Right?

Hank

[Walt Cakebread]

Evidence that it was stamped that way by a conspirator? Suggestion: Try not to use circular reasoning to justify your claim.

Obscure place? They listed it as "Johnson Exhibit A" and the footnote leads directly to her testimony and to the Commission Exhibit.

But your argument reduces to: The Warren Commission did nothing wrong. They published the document. It was other unidentified really bad people who did the bad stuff here. Right?

Hank

Are you unaware that not all of the members of LBJ's cover up committee endorsed the findings.  And some of the lawyers had strong doubts about the "finding'

[Jerry Freeman]

 
Yes, Mrs. Johnson admitted that. That doesn't change the business record that was produced into non-evidence. Nor does it make her testimony invalid.

That doesn't change the business record that was produced into non-evidence.

Produced into non-evidence? What is non evidence? If the Johnson 'Exbt A' is non evidence then why is it there? Answer--as fodder...meaningless crap.

Mr. BALL. Did he sign anything with that name?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I have it in my purse.
Mr. BALL. May I see it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I will be glad to--I don't want you to keep it. I want you to--I brought it for your information. I knew you was going to ask that.
Mr. BALL. Now, is this in his handwriting?
Mrs. JOHNSON. This "O. H. Lee" is in his handwriting and this other is in the housekeeper's handwriting--Mrs. Roberts.

Johnson witnessed the signer sign a blank slip?
She did not wish to submit it. So what happened? Did Mr Ball keep it anyway? It was not submitted in evidence for the record.
When you sign something...something is written out for you to sign.
You don't sign something and then it written out for you.
Johnson told Ball that she didn't want him to keep the slip? How come?... and then wouldn't that invalidate the paper as evidence?
But then Hank...you will argue about this too. Because that is why you are here. To argue and to continue to argue.... huh Hank?
You will even argue that you are not arguing.. won't you Mr Condescending Hank?

[John Iacoletti]

So your argument is that Johnson lied when she claimed Oswald signed that ledger page.

Not at all.  I'm questioning whether she is correct or not.  She could just be confused.

And that, if Oswald was going under an alias, he wouldn't try to disguise his handwriting in any fashion by perhaps signing "O.H.Lee" differently. Tell us how you reached that conclusion.

And yet you would have us believe he didn't "disguise his handwriting" when ordering a rifle to shoot a general.

Then he said that he had lived there under an assumed name. He asked me to remove the notation of the telephone number in Ruth's phone book, but I didn't want to do that. I asked him then, "Why did you give us a phone number, when we do call we cannot get you by name?"
He was very angry, and he repeated that I should remove the notation of the phone number from the phone book. And, of course, we had a quarrel.[/b] I told him that this was another of his foolishness, some more of his foolishness. I told Ruth Paine about this. It was incomprehensible to me why he was so secretive all the time.

All of that is also consistent with Johnson misunderstanding his name and him running with it.  Just like the "H. O. Lee" on the Greyhound bus slip.  Or are you going to claim that he signed that and disguised his handwriting too?

But to what end?  What does the O.H. Lee "alias" mean to you in terms of anything relevant to the assassination?

[Jerry Freeman]

Actually guys..I revived this thread [reply 77] not to debate O H Lee as that was done here...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1490.0.html
I was responding to the very first post by Gee stating that Oswald told Fritz that he lived at the Beckley address and then Fritz dispatched a search party. That claim was predisposed and blatantly false as I have demonstrated in both these threads.