LHO's shirt

[Dan O'meara]

You raise an interesting point. I don't believe that, if there was a conspiracy, Oswald could have been framed without some involvement at some level. Having said that, I have to take issue with the notion that it was vital for Oswald not to have an alibi. IMO it wouldn't really matter if he had an alibi, when the conspirators also control the cover up.

The assumption that people would be willing to come forward and provide an alibi for Oswald ignores the fact that the people were terrified. Brennan said he did not identify Oswald at the line up because he was afraid and feared for his family. Consider the circumstances; most witnesses of a serious crime don't come forward easily and voluntary. And this was the murder of a President! If he could get killed, so can anybody else, right? And then, two days later, Oswald gets killed, which means he no longer needs an alibi....

But even if some witnesses did come forward and provided an alibi for Oswald, just how easy would it be to conclude that those witnesses were simply wrong. Just like they said that Carolyn Arnold mistaken. Even if Oswald had an alibi, it still might not have done him any good.

Just have a look at what happened to Richard Rosario who was convicted of murder and spent 20 in jail for a murder he did not commit and could not have committed because he was in another state when it happened. He had 13 people who provided an alibi for him.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wrongfully-convicted-man-blames-nypd-for-unfair-trial/

And as for Oswald possibly being filmed or photographed, I'd just remind you that video and photo material has in fact disappeared or was "damaged".

So, no, I don't think that Oswald being seen somewhere else would necessarily be a problem if the conspirators also controlled the cover up.

I'm not so sure Martin.
The Altgens 6 pic is a good example. This picture, which showed the front steps of the TSBD, appeared on the front page of multiple newspapers (hhttp://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/03/kennedy-gallery-307.htmlours after the assassination)
There was a moment when many people believed this picture actually showed Oswald on the front steps and, as this pic had been seen by thousands of people, it would have exonerated him if it hadn't been Lovelady instead. "They" (whoever they are) would not have been able to contain it.

If (and it's a big if) Oswald was being manipulated it is hardly a great stretch to imagine he was being told what to do to some extent. A simple order of "stay out of sight" and some bogus excuse should suffice.

It is a very interesting fact that many of Oswald's co-workers tell blatant falsehoods between their various statements - Shelley, Lovelady, Williams, Norman and Dougherty (Givens and Jarman to a lesser extent).
If they were just innocent bystanders there would be no need for this "collective" deception. Of course some facts might get mixed up when recounting events, that's human nature, but this goes way beyond a few mix ups.

[Alan Ford]

I do not subscribe to the LN theory but have no way of knowing the extent if any of LHO’s involvement in any covert operation run by god knows who, that day in Dallas.

Was he an intelligence asset and to what extent was he aware of the planned covert operation to assassinate JFK?

He could have:

   •   No knowledge of any covert operation
   •   Knowledge of a covert operation  that did not involve the assassination of JFK (i.e. he had been fed disinformation about what was going to happen)
   •   Knowledge of a covert operation that planned to assassinate JFK

I have no way of knowing what the answer to that question is.

One thing puzzles me about the framing of LHO for the assassination.

If I am going to set him up as the patsy then I can incriminate him by placing the Mannlicher rifle amongst the boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the shells on the floor of the SN. What I must also do is ensure that he does not have an alibi for the time of the shooting.

Mr Pilgrim, I share your agnosticism as to Mr Oswald's ultimate role in the assassination, if any. It is quite possible that Mr Oswald was a knowing confederate in the plot to kill JFK.

As for the issue you raise here, it has a simple enough explanation: Mr Oswald was not being set up as an actual shooter. That (absurd) idea only came to life after the assassination, when the entire 'investigation' was geared to that conclusion.

We must treat the assassination conspiracy and the cover-up conspiracy as two distinct (if possibly overlapping) things.

[Dan O'meara]

Mr Pilgrim, I share your agnosticism as to Mr Oswald's ultimate role in the assassination, if any. It is quite possible that Mr Oswald was a knowing confederate in the plot to kill JFK.

As for the issue you raise here, it has a simple enough explanation: Mr Oswald was not being set up as an actual shooter. That (absurd) idea only came to life after the assassination, when the entire 'investigation' was geared to that conclusion.

We must treat the assassination conspiracy and the cover-up conspiracy as two distinct (if possibly overlapping) things.

"Mr Oswald was not being set up as an actual shooter."

What was he being set-up as then?

[Bill Chapman]

"Mr Oswald was not being set up as an actual shooter."

What was he being set-up as then?

NoName conspirator #1: Say, why not set up some mental case with a rifle poking out the window behind the limo, then attack from the front.
NoName conspirator #2: Ummmm... not quite sure where you're going with this...
NoName conspirator #1: Hmmmm...

[Alan Ford]

"Mr Oswald was not being set up as an actual shooter."

What was he being set-up as then?

I'm actually not 100% sure he was being set up at all by the assassination plotters, but if he was then it would have been as a commie confederate (most obviously via the Carcano).

One thing I'm sure of: he was not being set up as a gunman, let alone as a lone nut one.

[Dan O'meara]

NoName conspirator #1: Say, why not set up some mental case with a rifle poking out the window behind the limo, then attack from the front.
NoName conspirator #2: Ummmmmmm....not quite sure where you're going with this...
NoName conspirator #1: Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

 

I'm assuming you were cut off just as you were getting going

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not so sure Martin.
The Altgens 6 pic is a good example. This picture, which showed the front steps of the TSBD, appeared on the front page of multiple newspapers (hhttp://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/03/kennedy-gallery-307.htmlours after the assassination)
There was a moment when many people believed this picture actually showed Oswald on the front steps and, as this pic had been seen by thousands of people, it would have exonerated him if it hadn't been Lovelady instead. "They" (whoever they are) would not have been able to contain it.

True, they might not have been able to contain it, but, if "they" controlled the cover up, they could have spinned it, by making public that closer examination of the original picture had revealed that it wasn't Oswald after all. Don't forget that it wasn't instantly that people started to believe Oswald could be seen in the picture. That only came up later and when the HSCA actually examined the picture they just claimed it was Lovelady and not Oswald. That was all it took for most people to accept that it wasn't Oswald.

If (and it's a big if) Oswald was being manipulated it is hardly a great stretch to imagine he was being told what to do to some extent. A simple order of "stay out of sight" and some bogus excuse should suffice.

True, although it could be more subtle like "wait by the telephone at 12:30"

It is a very interesting fact that many of Oswald's co-workers tell blatant falsehoods between their various statements - Shelley, Lovelady, Williams, Norman and Dougherty (Givens and Jarman to a lesser extent).
If they were just innocent bystanders there would be no need for this "collective" deception. Of course some facts might get mixed up when recounting events, that's human nature, but this goes way beyond a few mix ups.

I'm not so sure that there was any collective deception. It can be very difficult to get the whole and correct information out of people. Take, for example, the statement by Victoria Adams about meeting Lovelady and Shelley after coming down the stairs. I am sure that happened, but not at the bottom of the stairs, as the WC claimed. The reconstruction I did a while back showed that she could only have seen Shelley and Lovelady after she left the building and ran towards the railroad tracks. Victoria was probably 100% correct that they were the first two men she knew that she saw, she just left out to explain exactly where that was. Another example is that I have frequently gone into meetings in past knowing in my mind exactly what I was going to say, only to come out of such a meeting realizing that I had forgotten some of the things I wanted to say. Getting actual factual 100% correct statements from people is nearly impossible.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm assuming you were cut off just as you were getting going

He's just desperately seeking attention.