BOOK REVIEW -- "Oswald's Game" By Jean Davison
David Von Pein
By:
Jean Davison
--------------------------------------------------------------
Publisher: W.W. Norton & Co.
Year Published: 1983.
Foreword by Norman Mailer.
343 Pages.
18 Chapters.
13 Pages of Illustrations/B&W Photographs.
29 Pages of Source Notes.
11-Page Index.
Bibliography.
Hardcover (1st Edition; November 1983).
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393017648
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anything I've ever seen written by Jean Davison merits high marks on
the "Common Sense" scale when it comes to evaluating the various
aspects of the John F. Kennedy assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald's
obvious involvement in that 1963 crime.
Davison is an expert on Presidential assassin Lee Oswald, and over the
many years since her 1983 book "Oswald's Game" was published, she has
defended her "Lone Assassin" position (at a variety of public JFK
forums) with grace, dignity, and (above all) a wealth of facts to
support the idea that Oswald was anything BUT an innocent "Patsy" on
11/22/63 (as many, many conspiracy promoters believe).
As the pages of this book are turned, it becomes easier and easier to
climb inside the mind of Lee Oswald, and assess what probably was going
through this strange man's head when he took it upon himself to carry a
cheap mail-order rifle into work one day and change the course of
history.
It's also interesting to note (via these intriguing pages) how Oswald
has been severely mischaracterized by conspiracy theorists over the
years as a person who could easily be manipulated (i.e., a "dupe" who
could easily fall prey to some kind of "Patsy" plot).
When, in reality, Lee Oswald was, himself, an expert "manipulator".
This book details many, many verified instances where Oswald would
cleverly manipulate his wife Marina to serve his own self-serving
purposes....and how he manipulated the officials at the American
Embassy in Russia, in order to secure the proper papers so that he
could return to the United States in 1962 after defecting to the USSR.
There is a clear and distinct PATTERN over many years of Oswald "using"
people to serve his own needs and desires. This man Oswald was no
brain-dead dupe....and would certainly have not been stupid enough to
be suckered in to some assassination plot in November 1963, whereby he
would willingly take his own rifle into his own workplace for the
purpose of handing it over to some co-conspirator, who would in turn
use it to kill JFK.
Conspiracists have too often (almost always, in fact) totally ignored
the type of manipulative and scheming person Lee Harvey Oswald HIMSELF
was in the months and years leading up to November 22nd, 1963.
After reading "Oswald's Game", it's very nearly impossible to NOT say
to yourself dozens of times throughout these chapters: This guy Oswald
was just EXACTLY the type of crackpot Marxist who just might want to
take a potshot at the President of the United States if given THE
GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO (which he was afforded -- on 11/22/63 in
Dallas, Texas).
Here are some of my favorite passages and quotes from "Oswald's Game":
"Is it possible that Castro's warning to American leaders gave Oswald
the idea that Kennedy should be killed? ... Oswald was quoted as
telling a consular official {in Mexico City} that he wanted to 'free
Cuba from American imperialism'. Then he said, 'Someone ought to shoot
that President Kennedy. Maybe I'll try to do it'. {Daniel} Schorr had
uncovered two sources that reported Oswald's threat." -- Pages 22-23
~~~~~~
"This book will present evidence that Castro's public warning did, in
fact, inspire Oswald to assassinate the president. Furthermore, the
full context of Oswald's life directed him toward this reaction. In the
final analysis, the assassination was a natural outgrowth of Oswald's
character and background -- and of the American-backed plots to kill
Castro." -- Page 23
~~~~~~
"The argument that Oswald was the tool of a high-level conspiracy does
seem plausible, until one tries to fit it into the context these
theorists always leave out -- the personality and background of Lee
Harvey Oswald, the individual." -- Page 25
Related topic:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66803e710380d800
~~~~~~
"Ten days after his interview with Priscilla Johnson, Oswald wrote a
second, remarkable letter to {his brother} Robert. ... He advised his
brother of the following: 1. In the event of war I would kill ANY
American who put a uniform on in defense of the American government --
any American." -- Pages 38-39
~~~~~~
"For one thing, this model {from "the St. Elizabeths Study"} at least
provides a framework for looking again at Oswald's breathtaking
arrogance -- for instance, the manner in which he threatened to give
away military secrets at the U.S. Embassy and then loudly complained
that the embassy had acted illegally in refusing to let him sign away
his citizenship. Oswald expected his adversaries to abide by the letter
of the law, whereas he did as he pleased. ... The cumulative details of
his life reveal more about him than any category we might use to
explain him." -- Page 68
~~~~~~
"{On the subject of "Death", Oswald told George DeMohrenschildt}: 'I
have had enough time in this short existence of mine. What shall I do
with eternity? When a rich man dies, he is loaded with his possessions
like a prisoner with chains. I will die free, death will be easy for
me'." -- Page 112
Related topic:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ff403dedacb5d4f
~~~~~~
"The assassination attempt against {General Edwin A.} Walker, like his
defection, revealed Oswald's extreme dedication to his political
beliefs. All else was secondary to him -- his family, even the question
of whether he lived or died." -- Page 131
~~~~~~
"These credentials {presented by Oswald himself within his "resume"}
indicate that {Oswald} saw himself as an experienced political
operative who was qualified to work for the Cuban revolution as a
soldier, lecturer, organizer, agitator, translator, or spy. ... He
expected to be welcomed aboard, and he would then go out and
distinguish himself in the Communist world and work his way up. ... For
someone who couldn't hold a job in the United States, he had some
extraordinary ambitions." -- Page 180
~~~~~~
"When these men visited {Sylvia} Odio's apartment {on September 25,
1963}, Kennedy's trip to Dallas had not even been scheduled, let alone
announced. ... No one on earth could have known that Oswald would
ultimately land a job in a building that would overlook a Kennedy
motorcade.
"But the frame-up theory's ultimate weakness involves the critics'
conception of Lee Harvey Oswald. In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a
piece of chaff blown about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb
and compliant puppet with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw
was an impostor, how could the plotters be certain no witnesses would
be able to establish Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening --
unless they ordered the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight?
"And if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro plotters get
their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio's door to be introduced as a
friend of the Cuban exiles?
"No one has come up with a plausible scenario that can answer those
questions. ... The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave
testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain
what it meant." -- Pages 193-195
Related topic:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
~~~~~~
"I began to see how similar {Oswald's} encounters with Bringuier and
Odio were. Oswald had approached each of them as an eager volunteer.
... The age-old role of the provocateur is to encourage acts of
violence that will discredit the group he has infiltrated. ... In other
words, the mysterious Odio incident was another of Oswald's attempts to
infiltrate the anti-Castro underground. The intended victim of this
enterprise was not Lee Harvey Oswald, but Sylvia Odio and the Cuban
exiles. Oswald was plotting against the exiles, not the other way
around.
"Unlike the explanations offered by the Warren Commission and its
critics, this solution FITS THE REST OF THE EVIDENCE ABOUT OSWALD. And
it makes better sense, after all, that Oswald went to see Odio for some
reason of his own, than that he was impersonated or duped by his
enemies." -- Pages 195-196 [Emphasis is Jean Davison's own.]
~~~~~~
"At 12:30 P.M. {on November 22, 1963}, Lee Harvey Oswald entered
history. Three shots from a sixth-floor Depository window hit Governor
Connally once and the president twice." -- Pages 241-242
Related topic:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
~~~~~~
"Marina could tell that he was guilty. If he hadn't been, she thought,
he would have been loudly protesting his arrest, and besides, she
sensed that he was saying goodbye to her with his eyes." -- Page 249
~~~~~~
"{Dallas Police Detective James R.} Leavelle told the {Warren}
Commission the prisoner {Oswald} seemed very much in control of himself
at all times and added, 'In fact, he struck me as a man who enjoyed the
situation immensely and was enjoying the publicity and everything
[that] was coming his way'." -- Page 253
Related topic:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
~~~~~~
"{At 11:21 AM on Sunday, November 24, 1963, Jack} Ruby rushed forward
and shot him {Oswald} once in the abdomen. ... When the crowd outside
heard what had happened, it let out a cheer. ... A raised fist was
Oswald's last comment." -- Page 254
~~~~~~
"Although the solutions proposed by {David} Lifton and {Michael}
Eddowes are more farfetched than some, they use the same style of
reasoning found in other conspiracy books. All these theories are based
on unexplained discrepancies in the record. ... Alternative
explanations and the overall pattern of the evidence are given little
attention, if any." -- Pages 274-275
Related topic:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad
~~~~~~
"The reader {of pro-conspiracy books} will understand the difficulty
these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story
that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods',
left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into
the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is
strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will
inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt." --
Page 276
Related topics:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4dd73f8e676a5db8
~~~~~~
"The conspiracists' methods produce a surreal world. Every discrepancy
is interpreted as a crack in the official stone wall through which one
may glimpse the ugly truth of what happened. Behind the wall are
disconnected scenes, each with its own set of conspirators. On close
examination, many of these scenes evaporate." -- Page 277
~~~~~~
"The assassination of John Kennedy was neither an act of random
violence nor a conspiracy. It was carried out as a result of Oswald's
character and background interacting with circumstance." -- Page 297
[END BOOK QUOTES.]
Jean Davison's "Oswald's Game" is 343 pages of impeccably-researched
material detailing the very unusual 24-year life of Lee Harvey Oswald
-- the man who was charged with assassinating President Kennedy.
I challenge anyone who reads this book to then come away from such a
reading with the following mindset: "There is no possible way to
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed John F. Kennedy by
himself on November 22, 1963".
Such a mindset should forever be eliminated from a reasonable person's
head upon the completion of reading "Oswald's Game".
The physical evidence of Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination has
been rock-solid since the day the murder occurred in Dallas. But the
question of "Why would he want to shoot the President?" had been
dangling in the breeze -- never fully explained in a detailed manner --
until Davison came out with this absorbing book twenty years after the
President's death.
It's true, of course, that this publication will not convince every
last person on the planet that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK all
alone....but it should increase the percentage of "LNers" by a goodly
number. Of that, I am certain.
Thank you, Jean Davison, for your excellent book "Oswald's Game"....and
for the "high road" that you have taken since writing it when dealing
with critics of your work regarding Oswald. I've yet to read an article
or a newsgroup posting by Jean that didn't brim over with common sense
and reasoned thinking with respect to John Kennedy's assassination.
-----------------------------
In a (lone)-nutshell.....
1.) This book shows (beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion) that Lee
Harvey Oswald had it WITHIN HIMSELF the desire to shoot President
Kennedy.
2.) The physical evidence positively indicates that Oswald's very own
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WAS the one and ONLY weapon used to kill JFK.
Those two things go together like bread and butter. When adding #1 to
#2 above, it's pretty clear that Lee Oswald was not the "innocent
patsy" that so many consiracy theorists seem to want to believe he was.
Instead, numbers 1 and 2 above, when merged, are telling the world that
Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
David Von Pein
February 2006
January 2007
Glenn Sarlitto
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168846714.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> "OSWALD'S GAME"
>
> By:
>
> Jean Davison
>
Regarding Jean Davision's book and the following quoted text....
"CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE EASY. IT IS WHAT THE MIND DOES BEST"
I've yet to come across a more simple and truthful statement regarding the
controversy surrounding the JFK Assassination controversy. CHANCE, NO
CONSPIRACY, credited to Ken Rahn comes close, although I know I used this
one myself back in my revolutionary college days, but with no way to prove.
Jean certainly utilizes Dr. Rodger Remington's recommendation of
"INTELLECTUAL HONESTY and INFORMED COMMON SENSE regarding historical
research, analysis and reconciliation.
No doubt, future historians will be utilizing her book for the eventual
historical recording of the entire event written by an historian.
Glenn Sarlitto
Glenn Sarlitto
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1168846714.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> "OSWALD'S GAME"
>>
>> By:
>>
>> Jean Davison
>>
>
> Regarding Jean Davision's book and the following quoted text....
>
> "CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE EASY. IT IS WHAT THE MIND DOES BEST"
>
> I've yet to come across a more simple and truthful statement regarding the
> controversy surrounding the JFK Assassination controversy. CHANCE, NO
> CONSPIRACY, credited to Ken Rahn comes close, although I know I used this
> one myself back in my revolutionary college days, but with no way to
> prove.
After further reflection, the above may be a bit misleading. I meant to post
that I have no proof that I had thought of the concept "Chance, No
Conspiracy" back in my revolutionary teen years. Not that I think it
impossible to reasonably reconcile that conclusion.
Again, due credit goes to Ken Rahn for publishing it & promoting it.
Glen
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168846714.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
DVP." <<<
Jean's book does contain some speculation, yes. I don't deny that. But
it's REASONABLE speculation, being based on Oswald's character and actions
and activities leading up to 11/22/63.
Jean has speculated that Oswald killed JFK (alone) on behalf of Castro,
after Castro made a threatening statement against U.S. leaders in early
September 1963 (although Castro later denied the comment was a "threat" of
any kind...but it obviously appeared on paper to be such).
But Jean's documented accounts of Oswald's KNOWN ACTIVITIES AND STATEMENTS
TO OTHER PEOPLE are not "speculation"....those things are FACTS. Oswald
did and said those things, without question (unless you want to think that
a myriad of people are lying about every movement and statement Oswald
ever made in his life; which would be merely unsupportable "speculation"
on a CTer's part, if he/she chooses to go down that "Nothing Is What It
Seems To Be" path, as many CTers are wont to do re. every aspect of the
JFK case).
As I said in my review.....
"After reading 'Oswald's Game', it's very nearly impossible to NOT say to
yourself dozens of times throughout these chapters: This guy Oswald was
just EXACTLY the type of crackpot Marxist who just might want to take a
potshot at the President of the United States if given THE GOLDEN
OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO (which he was afforded -- on 11/22/63 in Dallas,
Texas)." -- DVP
~~~~
And Jean Davison herself summed up the assassination very nicely near the
end of her book with this simple and to-the-point paragraph (which is a
paragraph of text that is almost certainly accurate, based on the physical
evidence in the case COMBINED with Oswald's politically-based
personality).....
"The assassination of John Kennedy was neither an act of random violence
nor a conspiracy. It was carried out as a result of Oswald's character and
background interacting with circumstance." -- J. Davison; Page #297 of
"Oswald's Game" (c.1983)
tomnln
Novels, Cartoons, What next?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168902154.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
JLeyd...@aol.com
David Von Pein wrote:
> "OSWALD'S GAME"
>
> By:
>
> Jean Davison
>
The part of Jean's book I remember best is her comment on Mark Lane's
tactic of misrepresenting evidence. She said: "Evidently, the Warren
(Commission) records were like a vast lumberyard. By picking up a few
pieces here and there, and doing some cutting and fitting, any theory
could be built for which someone had a blueprint." Anyone who reviews the
JFK news groups knows that Mark Lane isn't the only one who plays so fast
and loose with the evidence and testimony.
JGL
tomnln
Novels, Cartoons, What next?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168902154.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Probably some CTer who thinks he actually knows what happened on
11/22/63. Think that might be "next"?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "So a book {"Oswald's Game"} of speculation is really great...so says
> DVP." <<<
>
> Jean's book does contain some speculation, yes. I don't deny that. But
> it's REASONABLE speculation, being based on Oswald's character and actions
> and activities leading up to 11/22/63.
>
> Jean has speculated that Oswald killed JFK (alone) on behalf of Castro,
> after Castro made a threatening statement against U.S. leaders in early
> September 1963 (although Castro later denied the comment was a "threat" of
> any kind...but it obviously appeared on paper to be such).
>
Jean wants to play a typical WC defender game. To say that Oswald was the
lone shooter, but maybe Castro was behind it. A way to admit conspiracy
without having to open the door to speculation about US government
involvement.
Anthony Marsh
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> "OSWALD'S GAME"
>>
>> By:
>>
>> Jean Davison
>>
>
> The part of Jean's book I remember best is her comment on Mark Lane's
> tactic of misrepresenting evidence. She said: "Evidently, the Warren
> (Commission) records were like a vast lumberyard. By picking up a few
> pieces here and there, and doing some cutting and fitting, any theory
> could be built for which someone had a blueprint." Anyone who reviews the
> JFK news groups knows that Mark Lane isn't the only one who plays so fast
> and loose with the evidence and testimony.
>
Jean conveniently forgets that at that time, Mark Lane and others were
only using the WC's own documents to criticize their conclusions.
tomnln
WHICH one of Officer Baker's FOUR (4) Different accounts of his lunchroom
encounter with Oswald is TRUE?
Tell us if you believe Bakers...
1st story?
2nd story?
3rd story?
4th story?
Do you believe any combination of the above 4?
Do you believe ALL 4?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168987829.0...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Peter Makres
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:lvqdnS1SCrHa6TDY...@comcast.com...
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> "So a book {"Oswald's Game"} of speculation is really great...so says
>> DVP." <<<
>>
>> Jean's book does contain some speculation, yes. I don't deny that. But it's REASONABLE speculation, being based on
>> Oswald's character and actions and activities leading up to 11/22/63.
>>
>> Jean has speculated that Oswald killed JFK (alone) on behalf of Castro, after Castro made a threatening statement
>> against U.S. leaders in early September 1963 (although Castro later denied the comment was a "threat" of any
>> kind...but it obviously appeared on paper to be such).
>>
>
> Jean wants to play a typical WC defender game. To say that Oswald was the lone shooter, but maybe Castro was behind
> it. A way to admit conspiracy without having to open the door to speculation about US government involvement.
Speaking of games, here is a game that CT'ers like to play: as soon as
somebody says that Oswald may have assassinated the President on behalf of
Castro (in Oswald's mind only, mind you) CT'ers then like to put words in
our mouths and say we have admitted conspiracy, which we have not. All we
have said is Oswald may have assassinated the President with the idea that
he was helping Castro's cause.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:lvqdnS1SCrHa6TDY...@comcast.com...
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "So a book {"Oswald's Game"} of speculation is really great...so says
>>> DVP." <<<
>>>
>>> Jean's book does contain some speculation, yes. I don't deny that. But it's REASONABLE speculation, being based on
>>> Oswald's character and actions and activities leading up to 11/22/63.
>>>
>>> Jean has speculated that Oswald killed JFK (alone) on behalf of Castro, after Castro made a threatening statement
>>> against U.S. leaders in early September 1963 (although Castro later denied the comment was a "threat" of any
>>> kind...but it obviously appeared on paper to be such).
>>>
>> Jean wants to play a typical WC defender game. To say that Oswald was the lone shooter, but maybe Castro was behind
>> it. A way to admit conspiracy without having to open the door to speculation about US government involvement.
>
> Speaking of games, here is a game that CT'ers like to play: as soon as
> somebody says that Oswald may have assassinated the President on behalf of
> Castro (in Oswald's mind only, mind you) CT'ers then like to put words in
> our mouths and say we have admitted conspiracy, which we have not. All we
> have said is Oswald may have assassinated the President with the idea that
> he was helping Castro's cause.
>
Nice distinction, but that's not actually what you believe.
Jean Davison
You're calling him a liar.
Jean
Peter Makres
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:8Pudncjvz8tifC3Y...@comcast.com...
> Peter Makres wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:lvqdnS1SCrHa6TDY...@comcast.com...
>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>> "So a book {"Oswald's Game"} of speculation is really great...so says
>>>> DVP." <<<
>>>>
>>>> Jean's book does contain some speculation, yes. I don't deny that. But it's REASONABLE speculation, being based on
>>>> Oswald's character and actions and activities leading up to 11/22/63.
>>>>
>>>> Jean has speculated that Oswald killed JFK (alone) on behalf of Castro, after Castro made a threatening statement
>>>> against U.S. leaders in early September 1963 (although Castro later denied the comment was a "threat" of any
>>>> kind...but it obviously appeared on paper to be such).
>>>>
>>> Jean wants to play a typical WC defender game. To say that Oswald was the lone shooter, but maybe Castro was behind
>>> it. A way to admit conspiracy without having to open the door to speculation about US government involvement.
>>
>> Speaking of games, here is a game that CT'ers like to play: as soon as somebody says that Oswald may have
>> assassinated the President on behalf of Castro (in Oswald's mind only, mind you) CT'ers then like to put words in our
>> mouths and say we have admitted conspiracy, which we have not. All we have said is Oswald may have assassinated the
>> President with the idea that he was helping Castro's cause.
>>
>
> Nice distinction, but that's not actually what you believe.
Wrong, Tony. I do not believe that Oswald's hand was guided by anyone's
volition but his own. His motives may have been linked to his pro-Castro
leanings, but only in his own mind. I have stated this quite a few times
on this group.
Besides Tony, how can you know what another person believes? I think you
have enough trouble knowing what you believe in yourself.
David Von Pein
>>> "Which shows he {Oswald} was a poor man on a budget, and not the man working for powerful forces the {CTers} imagine." <<<
DVP NOW WRITES:
Exactly, Bud.
I guess the CTers who believe that Oswald was working for the CIA or
FBI (or whoever) also must believe that Oswald hid every last dime he
ever made as an "insider with the Agency"....because he sure as heck
wasn't living high on any type of hog that I could see. Not even
close. And the Warren Commission obviously never found any of that CIA
stash of Oswald's either.
The bum couldn't even support his wife and infant daughters. They had
to sponge off of other people for months at a time. And as far as I'm
aware, LHO never gave Ruth Paine a cent.
And Oswald, in the weeks leading up to the assassination, had to live
in an $8-a-week closet-sized room at a roominghouse, surrounded by
several other tenants. (A great atmosphere for "plotting" with his
fellow conspirators, huh?)
Do CIA operatives usually have to live in virtual poverty (in rooms
the size of shoeboxes)?
Great CIA gig there, huh?
The WC examined, in great detail, Lee Oswald's finances for the last
1.5 years of his life, and they came within $19 of balancing Oswald's
cash exactly.
Granted, the WC's figures re. LHO's cash situation included many
"estimations"; but they were all consistent monthly estimates,
allowing exactly $100 per month (for most months) for "food, clothing,
and incidental expenses".
On Page 745 of the Warren Report, we find the bottom-line estimate of
the WC's evaluation of Oswald's net worth as of November 22,
1963....and it is within $19.77 of LHO's actual "cash on hand" figure.
Per the WC detailed data, Oswald earned a not-very-hefty $3,665.89
from June 13, 1962, through November 22, 1963. His expenditures
totalled $3,501.79. Leaving a "cash on hand" balance on the day of the
assassination of $164.10 (per the WC estimates).
Oswald left $170 at the Paine house (no doubt for his wife) and he had
$13.87 on him when he was arrested. So the Commission missed the exact
figure by less than a single $20 bill.
So, if Lee was working for the CIA, he must have been doing so for
free. Or, Lee hid his CIA wealth somewhere and it's never been
discovered to this day.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0385a.htm
BUD WROTE:
>>> "If you got Jean Davison's book on Oswald, you wouldn't be so clueless on these issues. .... Get Jean's book "Oswald's Game". <<<
DVP WRITES:
I'm glad to see that Bud thinks so highly of Jean Davison's excellent
book, too. So do I. Without a doubt.....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-
thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/103-9597227-6764635?
ie=UTF8&ASIN=0393017648&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewI
D=R3FTAF6Q657O77&displayType=ReviewDetail
Anyone who finishes reading Jean's book who then still comes away with
the notion that Oswald could not possibly have been (at the very
least) heavily involved in the JFK murder is a person who is fooling
themselves...badly.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>BUD WROTE (IN ANOTHER THREAD):
>>>> "Which shows he {Oswald} was a poor man on a budget, and not the man working for powerful forces the {CTers} imagine." <<<
>
>DVP NOW WRITES:
>
>Exactly, Bud.
>
>I guess the CTers who believe that Oswald was working for the CIA or
>FBI (or whoever) also must believe that Oswald hid every last dime he
>ever made as an "insider with the Agency"....because he sure as heck
>wasn't living high on any type of hog that I could see. Not even
>close. And the Warren Commission obviously never found any of that CIA
>stash of Oswald's either.
Please show me the pay stub of a covert employee of the CIA.
Maybe he had an account in Minnesota under the name J. Martin.
Perhaps, by this time, the money has reverted back to the US
Government.
A few years ago I discovered a bank account that had been forgotten by
someone. After 10 years and no contact with the owner (despite
efforts), the bank was required by law to transfer the money to the
Federal Government for further safekeeping. It is held for a certain
period of time. In this case, the money had already been transferred,
and the name and amount published in the Canada Gazette in case anyone
was looking ....
I just happened to stumble upon the notice and informed the surprised
and happy owner.
Oswald was so secretive how would anyone know if he stuffed money
under a rock or in a bank under an false name.
Not likely mind you .... poor Marina dreamed of a new washing machine.
She did get it though, but Oswald never had a single item of clothing
washed in it. Not even a shirt with a "distinctive hole" in the right
elbow!
PF
David Von Pein
>>> "Maybe he {Lee Harvey "CIA" Oswald} had an account in Minnesota under
the name J. Martin." <<<
And then never bothered using a dollar of it to support his wife and kids
(or himself).
Yeah...that's logical.
He makes lots of covert cash....only to never, ever use any of it.
Great gig.
>>> "I just happened to stumble upon the notice and informed the surprised
and happy owner." <<<
Was the owner's name Lee H. Oswald, O.H. Lee, D.F. Drittal, or Alek James
Hidell? If not, I don't really care. ;)
>>> "Oswald was so secretive, how would anyone know if he stuffed money
under a rock or in a bank under a false name?" <<<
And then never bothered to spend a cent of it on himself, his wife, or his
kids.
But, then again, maybe Sweet Lee wasn't in it for the cash. Just the
intrigue. Right?
Anthony Marsh
> BUD WROTE (IN ANOTHER THREAD):
>>>> "Which shows he {Oswald} was a poor man on a budget, and not the man working for powerful forces the {CTers} imagine." <<<
>
> DVP NOW WRITES:
>
> Exactly, Bud.
>
> I guess the CTers who believe that Oswald was working for the CIA or
> FBI (or whoever) also must believe that Oswald hid every last dime he
> ever made as an "insider with the Agency"....because he sure as heck
> wasn't living high on any type of hog that I could see. Not even
> close. And the Warren Commission obviously never found any of that CIA
> stash of Oswald's either.
>
> The bum couldn't even support his wife and infant daughters. They had
> to sponge off of other people for months at a time. And as far as I'm
> aware, LHO never gave Ruth Paine a cent.
>
> And Oswald, in the weeks leading up to the assassination, had to live
> in an $8-a-week closet-sized room at a roominghouse, surrounded by
> several other tenants. (A great atmosphere for "plotting" with his
> fellow conspirators, huh?)
>
> Do CIA operatives usually have to live in virtual poverty (in rooms
> the size of shoeboxes)?
>
Some do. Sleeper agents. Deep cover.
> Great CIA gig there, huh?
>
> The WC examined, in great detail, Lee Oswald's finances for the last
> 1.5 years of his life, and they came within $19 of balancing Oswald's
> cash exactly.
>
> Granted, the WC's figures re. LHO's cash situation included many
> "estimations"; but they were all consistent monthly estimates,
> allowing exactly $100 per month (for most months) for "food, clothing,
> and incidental expenses".
>
> On Page 745 of the Warren Report, we find the bottom-line estimate of
> the WC's evaluation of Oswald's net worth as of November 22,
> 1963....and it is within $19.77 of LHO's actual "cash on hand" figure.
>
> Per the WC detailed data, Oswald earned a not-very-hefty $3,665.89
> from June 13, 1962, through November 22, 1963. His expenditures
> totalled $3,501.79. Leaving a "cash on hand" balance on the day of the
> assassination of $164.10 (per the WC estimates).
>
> Oswald left $170 at the Paine house (no doubt for his wife) and he had
> $13.87 on him when he was arrested. So the Commission missed the exact
> figure by less than a single $20 bill.
>
> So, if Lee was working for the CIA, he must have been doing so for
> free. Or, Lee hid his CIA wealth somewhere and it's never been
> discovered to this day.
>
Oh, you mean like Clay Shaw never been paid any money by the CIA?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Maybe he {Lee Harvey "CIA" Oswald} had an account in Minnesota under
> the name J. Martin." <<<
>
> And then never bothered using a dollar of it to support his wife and kids
> (or himself).
>
> Yeah...that's logical.
>
> He makes lots of covert cash....only to never, ever use any of it.
>
He never used the $179.
He lived frugally.
Aldrich Ames received millions of dollars from the KGB, but did not
spend all of it at once. And no one seemed to question where he got all
the money from.
The affidavit made public at the time of the arrests also confirmed that
Ames had received substantial payments for the information he had
provided -- money that he had used years earlier to purchase a new
Jaguar automobile and a $540,000 home, with cash, in Arlington.
Apparently, these seemingly large expenditures by an employee making
less than $70,000 a year had not raised questions at the CIA.
> Great gig.
>
>
>>>> "I just happened to stumble upon the notice and informed the surprised
> and happy owner." <<<
>
> Was the owner's name Lee H. Oswald, O.H. Lee, D.F. Drittal, or Alek James
> Hidell? If not, I don't really care. ;)
>
>>>> "Oswald was so secretive, how would anyone know if he stuffed money
> under a rock or in a bank under a false name?" <<<
>
> And then never bothered to spend a cent of it on himself, his wife, or his
> kids.
>
He always left plenty of money for his wife and kids with Marina in a
wallet. If you want to blame anyone for not spending all of it, blame
Marina. She had the money. Oswald only took out what he needed for
weekly expenses in a cheap rooming house.
> But, then again, maybe Sweet Lee wasn't in it for the cash. Just the
> intrigue. Right?
>
But then again, maybe innocent little cutie Clay Shaw wasn't in it for
the cash. Just the patriotism. Right?
And maybe a few boys on the side like Ferrie's.
>
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>
>>>> "Maybe he {Lee Harvey "CIA" Oswald} had an account in Minnesota under
>the name J. Martin." <<<
>
>And then never bothered using a dollar of it to support his wife and kids
>(or himself).
Duh, he was shot dead. Tough to use when dead.
>
>Yeah...that's logical.
Perfectly.
>He makes lots of covert cash....only to never, ever use any of it.
Some die young.
>
>Great gig.
Really. I prefer breathing.
PF
David Von Pein
Was the "JFK job" his first job for the Agency?
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> So he only got paid AFTER his death eh?
Certainly, thats how you insure loyalty, you stick your agents in
low paying jobs, and starve their families.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:lvqdnS1SCrHa6TDY...@comcast.com...
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "So a book {"Oswald's Game"} of speculation is really great...so says
>>> DVP." <<<
>>>
>>> Jean's book does contain some speculation, yes. I don't deny that. But it's REASONABLE speculation, being based on
>>> Oswald's character and actions and activities leading up to 11/22/63.
>>>
>>> Jean has speculated that Oswald killed JFK (alone) on behalf of Castro, after Castro made a threatening statement
>>> against U.S. leaders in early September 1963 (although Castro later denied the comment was a "threat" of any
>>> kind...but it obviously appeared on paper to be such).
>>>
>> Jean wants to play a typical WC defender game. To say that Oswald was the lone shooter, but maybe Castro was behind
>> it. A way to admit conspiracy without having to open the door to speculation about US government involvement.
>
> Speaking of games, here is a game that CT'ers like to play: as soon as
> somebody says that Oswald may have assassinated the President on behalf of
> Castro (in Oswald's mind only, mind you) CT'ers then like to put words in
> our mouths and say we have admitted conspiracy, which we have not. All we
> have said is Oswald may have assassinated the President with the idea that
> he was helping Castro's cause.
>
Maybe some other conspiracy believers. But what I am talking about is WC
defenders believing the hoaxes that link Oswald to Castro. It does not
take two shooters to make conspiracy. A lone nut assassin can be part of
a conspiracy if he is acting on behalf of someone else.
Anthony Marsh
You're kidding, right? You know it's against the rules for me to
actually call him a liar, don't you?