Jesse Curry Interviews Nov 1963

[Walt Cakebread]

Why would anyone claim that LHO couldn’t tell a lie?   

This isn’t the story about George Washington and the cherry tree.   

I've never heard of anybody claiming that Lee Oswald was a saint....  But when he answered Fritz's question about where he was when JFK passed by the TSBD, he simply answered Fritz and said that he was in the 1st floor lunchroom .....and when Fritz asked him if there was anybody else in the lunchroom, Lee simply said that he recalled seeing a couple of fellow employees walk by the room as he was sitting there.   

I will tell you that I have some doubt that Lee was simply sitting there in the lunchroom, because I believe he was prepared to duck out of sight into the adjoining  shower room, because he didn't want anybody to see him.   He was playing the role of a man who had attempted to shoot JFK.....  And if somebody told one of Castro's spies that they knew that Lee Oswald hadn't shot at JFK because they had seen him in the lunchroom just a minute or so before the shots were fired then Lee would have ended his life in front of Castro's firing squad in Cuba.     

[Richard Smith]

I will tell you that I have some doubt that Lee was simply sitting there in the lunchroom, because I believe he was prepared to duck out of sight into the adjoining  shower room, because he didn't want anybody to see him.   He was playing the role of a man who had attempted to shoot JFK.....  And if somebody told one of Castro's spies that they knew that Lee Oswald hadn't shot at JFK because they had seen him in the lunchroom just a minute or so before the shots were fired then Lee would have ended his life in front of Castro's firing squad in Cuba.   

This part is pure comedy gold.   Why didn't he just stay on the 6th floor if he was part of the plot to frame himself and wanted to stay out of sight?  Instead he goes down to the lunchroom (the place most likely to be seen an lunchtime) and hangs out while preparing to duck into a shower room?  LOL.  What was he going to do if someone was taking a shower etc.?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

As soon as you start invoking this “idol” nonsense…

The perfect opening for chappie and his claim of seeing an image of you taking a knee at his gravesite. Seems that you have a rather sensitive area…

Their type of thinking, of reasoning or judgment, is never applied to anyone else in this event. Only Oswald's behavior or actions are considered off limits. Or given the most innocent of explanations. Meanwhile, the behavior of others, of Brennan or Brewer or McDonald or "X" or "Y", is given the most critical of interpretations. Interpretations that are then used to impeach that person's credibility or to label the evidence "tainted." They will be silent, for example, when Ruth Paine is accused of being involved - no critical examination of the claims against her - while they are always - always - quick to come to Oswald's defense. Every single time.

If you go to other sites where controversial historic events are discussed - the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, Sacco and Vanzetti whatever - none of the participants discuss the evidence the way the Oswald defenders do. Nobody. And participants give their own ideas, their own theories, as to who was involved. Nobody dodges requests on who they think kidnapped the baby. Or who killed JonBenet Ramsay. And simply and only attack the evidence against Hauptmann or whoever.

It's only with Oswald. "Idolize" or "cult followers", however you want to label it, it's obvious and very bizarre. It's again, as I've said, Oswald as a sort of American Dreyfus.

[Walt Cakebread]

Making up likelihoods is what “Richard” considers “logic”.

Yes, John....I believe that you're right.   Attempting to tie the Walker incident to the assassination of JFK isn't logical.   Apparently the investigators weren't as perceptive as our Mr "Smith" because  DPD Chief Curry simply shrugged off the suggestion when he was asked if there was a connection between the two events.

However....I do believe there is a common MO in the two events.   Though there would have been no logical reason to tie the two events together on the evening of 11/22/63, it is now obvious that there is a common MO that can be applied to both events.

The common denominator is... Lee Oswald.    And in both events there are many many questions  that require answers that only Lee Oswald could supply.   

   

[Martin Weidmann]

The note-takers said Oswald claimed to be in the domino room having lunch with one or more people there, or that Oswald saw two people who came into the lunchroom. Taking all the reports from those present when Oswald was questioned, Fritz's note saying they "came in" means the two black men entered the lunchroom and possibly had lunch with Oswald there.

Fritz's note saying they "came in" means the two black men entered the lunchroom

Not necessarily. It could just as easily mean that Oswald saw both men as they "came in" the building through the backdoor, which was very close to the door of the Domino room.

[Walt Cakebread]

The note-takers said Oswald claimed to be in the domino room having lunch with one or more people there, or that Oswald saw two people who came into the lunchroom. Taking all the reports from those present when Oswald was questioned, Fritz's note saying they "came in" means the two black men entered the lunchroom and possibly had lunch with Oswald there.

The note-takers said Oswald claimed to be in the domino room having lunch with one or more people there,

No, that's not true Mr O.... Both Fritz's and Hosty's scribbled notes have been posted many times, and those notes say nothing about Lee telling Fritz that he ate lunch with anybody....He said that he was alone in the lunchroom.

 or that Oswald saw two people who came into the lunchroom.

No, that's not true Mr O....Lee said that he saw two fellow employees walk by the lunchroom as he was eating his lunch.. 

[John Iacoletti]

If you go to other sites where controversial historic events are discussed - the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, Sacco and Vanzetti whatever - none of the participants discuss the evidence the way the Oswald defenders do. Nobody. And participants give their own ideas, their own theories, as to who was involved. Nobody dodges requests on who they think kidnapped the baby. Or who killed JonBenet Ramsay. And simply and only attack the evidence against Hauptmann or whoever.

Making conjectures about who committed crimes is pitifully easy. Substantiating those conjectures with reliable evidence — not so much. That applies to the JonBenet case (still unsolved) as much as it does to the JFK case. There is no virtue in making up creative stories.

[Martin Weidmann]

Jerry posed the question as to why Oswald would target Walker, a right winger, and JFK, a leftist, for assassination.  What facts do I "need to establish" to respond to this question?  There is no debate that a sniper attack on a public figure is an extremely rare crime.  There is no debate that both crimes occurred in Dallas.  There is no debate that both crimes occurred just a few months apart.  From those widely known and accepted facts, we can logically infer that the crimes were related due to their rarity and proximity in time and location.  It would be extremely unlikely that two such rare crimes would occur in Dallas within such a relatively short time frame and be unrelated.  So the same shooter almost certainly committed both crimes. 

Are you suggesting these facts are incorrect and that the two crimes are not related?  If Oswald committed both crimes (as the evidence confirms including his confession to Marina regarding his involvement in the Walker attempt), then we can infer from these facts certain conclusions as to why Oswald choose these specific targets for the reasons that I've discussed.  Most importantly opportunity and political grievances.  Walker lived in Dallas.  He was a right winger who Oswald hated for his political views.  His presence in Dallas made him accessible to Oswald who had limited means of transportation and funds.   Similarly, JFK's motorcade passed Oswald's place of employment.  Oswald had grievances against the US that he freely expressed.  JFK was the literal and symbolic head of the country that Oswald detested.  Oswald had motive and opportunity to commit both crimes.  There is nothing made up about any of this.  Certainly nothing you have articulated since your responses have been limited to contrarian commentary directed at me instead of addressing the facts and circumstances of the case.

From those widely known and accepted facts, we can logically infer that the crimes were related due to their rarity and proximity in time and location. '

There you go again, jumping to a conclusion not supported by the evidence. The mere fact that two attacks took place in Dallas within a few months of eachother tells you absolutely nothing about any possible relationship between those two crimes.

It would be extremely unlikely that two such rare crimes would occur in Dallas within such a relatively short time frame and be unrelated.

Your opinion isn't evidence. It is, at best, wishful thinking.

Are you suggesting these facts are incorrect and that the two crimes are not related?

No, I am suggesting that you are (once again) jumping to selfserving "conclusions".

Certainly nothing you have articulated since your responses have been limited to contrarian commentary directed at me instead of addressing the facts and circumstances of the case.

What facts would that be? All I see are your opinions and there is no point for me to debate those. Start presenting actual facts and circumstances of the case and I will respond. As long as you keep up making your own alternate reality (just like your orange high priest) I am not going to bother to justify any of it with a response.