Re: Marina Oswald Porter Still Questions JFK's Death

[aeffects]

On Dec 28 2011, 7:09 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:31 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 2:44 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 11:34 am, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 26, 4:00 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 26, 2:07 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You are really *slow* getting this -- Marina has said different things
> > > > > > at different times.  She has recanted the thesis of the WCR.
>
> > > > > Marina's opinions of the thesis of the WCR are irrelevant.
>
> > > > I disagree.  Marina IS the WCR.  Or was.
>
> > > There is an airtight case against Oswald even without one word from
> > > Marina.
>
> > That's not what I said.  The WC thought they needed her.  She gave
> > them what they wanted after being sequestered and threatened.
>
> You said "Marina IS the WCR". If that isn't saying that Marina's
> testimony was central to the case, then what were you trying to say.
> Had Marina not testified or had invoked her 5th Amendment rights, the
> findings of the WCR would have been the same.
>
> > >The weapons, the shells, the bullets, the fiber evidence, finger
> > > and palm print evidence, medical evidence, etc. You know. All that
> > > forensic stuff that is used in cases all the time. Oh yeah. There was an
> > > eyewitness too. Killing a cop didn't help his cause any either.
>
> > Well, there was no defense, so the WC only gave us half the story,
> > didn't they?  Guess you don't care?
>
> The WC gave overwhelming proof of Oswald's guilt. In 48 years, the CTs
> have failed miserably to provide proof that anyone else was involved.
> Was that the other half you claim the WC didn't give you. Doesn't seem
> like the two halves are equal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > >What is
> > > > > relevant is what she knew about her husband's actions, his ownership of
> > > > > the rifle, and the backyard photos.  She has not recanted any of that.
>
> > > > Who knows?
>
> > > That leaves you free to guess........I guess.
>
> > > > >Her
> > > > > opinions may have changed, but her knowledge of these relevant facts has
> > > > > not.
>
> > > > Her conclusion has changed.
>
> > > Nobody cares about her conclusions. We are only interested in what she
> > > had first hand knowledge of.
>
> > I disagree.  She has recanted the thesis of the WCR, that LHO acted alone,
> > after claiming under pressure that Lee was guilty.  Besides, who know what
> > else she has recanted?  Has anyone asked her lately?
>
> If you have no knowledge that she has recanted here testimony, why
> would you even think she has. Marina can't recant the thesis of the
> WCR because she didn't give us the thesis of the WCR. She gave
> testimony which was only a small part of the total body of evidence
> that her husband was the assassin. She has not recanted that
> testimony. If you want to fantasize that she has, that's your
> business.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > Go back and read what I wrote above until you understand it.
>
> > > > > > Go back and read what I wrote until you understand the implications of
> > > > > > what I have said. Had LHO been allowed to live to stand trial, Marina
> > > > > > would not have been able to testify against him. Marina was sequestered by
> > > > > > the SS and threatened with deportation until she gave the WC what it
> > > > > > wanted. When she read the 26 vols of H+E she changed her mind and recanted
> > > > > > the thesis of the WCR. The WCR has lost its star witness.  What validity
> > > > > > does it have today?
>
> > > > > Why do CTs always talk about what they could have gotten dismissed at
> > > > > trial had LHO lived.
>
> > > > Because you can't try a dead man.  But that's what the WC attempted to
> > > > do.
>
> > > No they didn't. They were a fact finding body.
>
> > No they weren't.  They were a keep-the-people-comfortable body.
>
> Well they failed at keeping the people comfortable but succeeded at
> finding the facts.
>
> > > It was not an advesarial
> > > proceeding which a trial would have been.
>
> > A trial would have had two sides.
>
> That's because a criminal trials are set up to protect the rights of
> the accused as well as find facts. Sometimes those are crossed
> purposes. Once Oswald was dead, there was no longer any need to
> protect his rights. Finding the facts was the sole purpose of the WC.
>
> > > > >Are you trying to get Oswald off the hook on
> > > > > techincalities.
>
> > > > Technically, LHO is off the hook because he is dead.
>
> > > Let's restore John Wilkes Booth good name while we are at it.
>
> > He was part of a conspiracy. Do you really want to open that door?
>
> He was also shot to death before he could stand trial so, like Oswald,
> he never was able to offer a defense, yet we have no problem accepting
> his guilt, but for some reason, some folks have a problem doing the
> same with Oswald. The fact that Booth took part in a conspiracy is not
> evidence that Oswald was part of one any more than Guiteau and
> Czolgosz are evidence he acted alone.
>
> > > > Too bad he was
> > > > not allowed to live to stand trial.  Then he could have been convicted
> > > > in a court of law by a jury of his peers.  Or acquitted.
>
> > > I know which one my money would have been on. He could have had OJ's
> > > defense team and he would probably still have been convicted. Gerry Spence
> > > couldn't get him an acquital in the mock trial and Bugliosi didn't even
> > > have Marina to testify.
>
> > He would have had Mark Lane.
>
> They would have deserved each other. I'd put Spence's and Bugliosi's
> records against Lane's any day.

sure you would, most no-nothings haven't a clue.... so troll, Lane
would royally kick both Bugliosi and Spences collective asses, either
in debate or trial.... he has the nads, unlike your two WCR
heroworships.... lmfao! They really pay you to be this stupid?

> > > > >Marina's testimony is relevant to those who care about the
> > > > > accuracy of history.
>
> > > > Which testimony?  The statements where she says she believes LHO
> > > > killed JFK or the ones where she believes LHO is innocent?
>
> > > Marina did not testify about what she believed but about what she
> > > knew. What she knew was damning to her husband and she hasn't recanted
> > > any of that.
>
> > Of course she has.  She has reframed everything according to the
> > belief that he did not act alone, and may not even be guilty.
>
> You don't seem to understand that Marina's opinions are not evidence
> of anything. What she testified to seeing, hearing, and doing are
> evidence and that evidence has not changed. The fact that her
> conclusions have changed doesn't change the things she was a witness
> to.
>
> > > > . No one who wants to know the truth of the
>
> > > > > assassination would disregard the important things she knew about her
> > > > > husband whether they would have been admissable in court or not.
>
> > > > Does anyone really know the truth?
>
> > > Only the LNs.
>
> > <sigh>LNTs have yet to be able to think outside of the WCR.  Please.
>
> What we see outside of the WCR is almost all nonsense. The WC beat
> everybody else to the truth of the assassination and that has forced
> almost everyone else to promote myths.
>
> > > > Has she been forthcoming with
> > > > anyone?
>
> > > She was forthcoming with the WC.
>
> > Oh dear.  Even the WC realized she was not being forthcoming. Garrison
> > wanted to question her as a hostile witness.  Where did you ever get that
> > idea?
>
> She told the WC was she saw and heard. The fact that she did so
> reluctantly doesn't mean she wasn't forthcoming.> > She hasn't backed off one thing she
> > > testified to and there is no other evidence that refutes what she told
> > > them, other than her not remembering taking more than one of the backyard
> > > photos when in all likelihood she took all of them.
>
> > She lied about how many she took.  She destroyed at least one.  None of
> > that matters?
>
> It would have opened her up to an obstruction of justice charge had
> anyone wanted to pursue that. The fact they still had two legitimate
> photos made the destruction of the third one moot.

[lazu...@webtv.net]

I noticed Raymond had said he had talked to Marina in regard to the BY
photos, she verified that she had taken them, but she told Harry
Livingstone as reported in High Treason 2, and Dick Russell in On The
Trail Of The JFK Assassins...that she had taken them, but there were
things in the photos that she hadn't taken, also that her photos were
possibly different?...I'm confused...Laz

[aeffects]

I doubt those BY photos TODAY would get passed muster in ANY court of
law... I suspect Marina has damn good cause to doubt what she sees in
the photos...

[Jason Burke]

You just keep living that fantasy, Lazboy.

[bigdog]

On Jan 4, 8:25 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:

You have to admit their fantasies are much more interesting than the
plain old boring truth you and I are stuck with.

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Right as you well know David-nothing makes sense about the photos-if LHO
was a lone nut and wanted to get away with the crime, why would he leave
them around? If he was part of a conspiracy-why leave them around? If
the photos were as simple as Marina claimed to the WC-why would LHO
state that the one he was shown by Fritz was fake? It would be a simple
matter if there was a trial and he lived, to show chain of possession
and Marina's statements on the record that she did take them.

All the 100 plus extant photos of LHO look fine-only these look screwy,
and obviously screwy, especially 133-C( i'd like to see a real good
blow up of the face on this one because under a magnifying glass it
doesn't look right period). Somehow...the pictures seem much too
convenient.

The recreation photos wth Det. Bobby Brown look fine, and don't exhibit
all the anomalies... anyway, we haven't seen the definitive study of
these pictures or the Autopsy pictures utilizing the latest technology,
so if someone glibly says they are authentic, maybe, possibly, but I'll
reserve judgement,as it doesn't mean anything to me...Laz

[greg]

Sylvia Meagher guessed correctly.

Marina took one photo and one only - in Minsk in March '62 showing
Oswald holding his shotgun over his head and inscribed on the back to
his new-born daughter.

The idea for the BY photos was based on this photo - which she
destroyed post-assassination after speaking to her baby-sitter in
Russian because she feared it would be used against her husband.

So who knew about the Minsk photo? RP and MP.

But what do I know? Or Sylvia for that matter...

I really think you need to check it out with DSL. He will set you
straight that all the photos in the evidence are genuine and all taken
by Marina...

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Greg,Somewhere I recall...(anyway, I haven't read Meagher, read around a
100 JFK Assassination books, but can't read them all, nor would I want
too, though there is some very unique interesting info. in some
otherwise mediocre books) that Marguerite in Ft. Worth had destroyed a
BY Photo of Oswald holding a rfile over his head? So, you are saying
that this was actually a photo of Lee in Minsk that Marina destroyed,
which was the impetus for the entire set of fraudulent BY photos and
that RP and MP are connected?

Interesting...I'll have to think about that..also, interesting is DeM &
Roscoe White are connected to the photos, but the former at a possible
facilitator macro level, and the latter at the micro level... I believe
of the conspiracy...Laz

[aeffects]

you lone nut-troll morons wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you up
side the head.... but you keep coming back ya'll heah, now!

[greg]

From Marguerite's testimony:

"My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian, "Mamma." she says.
So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said,
"Mamma, I show you." She opened the closet, and in the closet was a
lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture a picture of
Lee, with a gun. It said, "To my daughter June"-written in English. I
said, "Oh, Marina, police." I didn't think anything of the picture.
Now, you must understand that I don't know what is going on on
television--I came from the jailhouse and everything, so I don't know
all the circumstances, what evidence they had against my son by this
time. I had no way of knowing. But I say to my daughter, "To my
daughter. June." anybody can own a rifle, to go hunting. You yourself
probably have a rifle. So I am not connecting this with the
assassination--"To my daughter, June." Because I would immediately
say, and I remember--I think my son is all agent all the time no one
is going to be foolish enough if they mean to assassinate the
President, or even murder someone to take a picture of themselves with
that rifle, and leave that there for evidence."

It was Marina that destroyed it - AFTER talking to Ruth Paine.

Marguerite makes no mention of the photo showing TWO weapons OR any
newspapers. If other photos existed - especially ones showing Oswald
holding commie papers, why would Marina only be concerned about this
rather innocent sounding one?

I haven't got Meagher's book either - but it is online somewhere where
she opines that there was a photo taken in Minsk with him holding his
shotgun. Because it was inscribed to June, I think she was right. That
would mean it was taken early March, 1962, shortly after June was
born. It's why Marina insisted at first she only took one.

I think a certain baby sitter talked Marina into destroying it so that
similar but more incriminating fakes could be manufactured. It was
also why they were said to be taken in March - so that the month would
also be consistent and everything else would line up - alleged
purchase of weapons - BY photos - Walker shooting.

Just to add to that - there is no physical evidence of the Oswald's
living at the Neely St apartment - except a photo allegedly of June
taken on the balcony, and the BY photos themselves. There were no rent
records obtained - no receipts asked for or found - no records held by
any utility companies that proved they lived there. Apart from the
photos, there is only the word of the owner and the occupants of the
downstairs apartment. No other neighbors recalled them at all - and
new evidence is being developed which may show the photo of June is
not June at all, and that if anyone was living there during the
period, it was not the Oswald's. One last thing - the apartment was
not re-let after the "Oswald's" moved out. The place was padlocked by
the owner - but according to him, someone was picking the lock and
breaking in during the months leading up to the assassination.

greg
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Very interesting post...makes sense, if a couple more pieces were put in
place could get really interesting...Laz

[Bud]

This would be the owner you don`t believe when he says the Oswalds
stayed there, right?

> greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

[Walt]

On Jan 5, 11:56 am, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Right as you well know David-nothing makes sense about the photos-if LHO
> was a lone nut and wanted to get away with the crime, why would he leave
> them around?

What crime?..... Are you morphing the Walker incident with the murder
of President Kennedy?

At the time that Lee had Marina take the photo (CE 133A ) he was
trying to assemble a dossier that made him appear to be a radical
communist revolutionary, in the image of Fidel Castro. He put
together a notebook outlining his planned attack on Fidel Castro's
most vocal enemy, ex- general Edwin Walker. In the notebook he had
photos of Walker's house, and the area surrounding Walker's house, and
a map of the area. He intended for the police to find this
"incriminating" evidence so that it would be published in newspapers
and lend believabilty to the bullet hole in Walker's window.


There was no plot to murder JFK at the time Oswald created his fake
dossier..... Months later when Walker and company decided to murder
JFK they knew they could use Oswald's fake dossier to incriminate him
as the assassin. They knew that Oswald had snitched to Bobby Kennedy
about their secret training camps in Lousiana, and liked the idea of
getting JFK and the little commie snitch in one swell poop.

[Walt]

Well think abouit this Laz...... Lee was a foreigner in the USSR....
Do you really think the Russians would have allowed him to have a
rifle?? Even Russian citizens weren't allowed to possess rifles.

[greg]

On Jan 12, 8:10 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:36 pm, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 6:51 am, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > Greg,Somewhere I recall...(anyway, I haven't read Meagher, read around a
> > > 100 JFK Assassination books, but can't read them all, nor would I want
> > > too, though there is some very unique interesting info. in some
> > > otherwise mediocre books) that Marguerite in Ft. Worth had destroyed a

> > > BY Photo ofOswaldholding a rfile over his head? So, you are saying

> > Just to add to that - there is no physical evidence of theOswald's

> > living at the Neely St apartment - except a photo allegedly of June
> > taken on the balcony, and the BY photos themselves. There were no rent
> > records obtained - no receipts asked for or found - no records held by
> > any utility companies that proved they lived there. Apart from the
> > photos, there is only the word of the owner and the occupants of the
> > downstairs apartment. No other neighbors recalled them at all - and
> > new evidence is being developed which may show the photo of June is
> > not June at all, and that if anyone was living there during the

> > period, it was not theOswald's.  One last thing - the apartment was

> > not re-let after the "Oswald's" moved out. The place was padlocked by
> > the owner - but according to him, someone was picking the lock and
> > breaking in during the months leading up to the assassination.
>
>   This would be the owner you don`t believe when he says the Oswalds
> stayed there, right?

I'd rather not rely on "belief".

There is no actual hard evidence. In fact, some evidence points the
other way (e.g) meter readers reporting no one living there during the
time they were supposed to be; very very little electric or gas usage
- more considtent with short visits by the owner, or by a single
person living very frugally.

And one former resident downstairs claims Marina spoke English.

A couple of possibilities:

Another couple, coincidently named Oswald, lived there

Lee parked Marina and baby there for a week or so while he was off
doing whatever.

As I said, research is ongoing, with former residents having been
tracked down by various people and interviewed by a very diligent
young guy from Alaska.

[greg]

On Jan 12, 9:34 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 1:51 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > Greg,Somewhere I recall...(anyway, I haven't read Meagher, read around a
> > 100 JFK Assassination books, but can't read them all, nor would I want
> > too, though there is some very unique interesting info. in some
> > otherwise mediocre books) that Marguerite in Ft. Worth had destroyed a

> > BY Photo ofOswaldholding a rfile over his head? So, you are saying

> > that this was actually a photo of Lee in Minsk that Marina destroyed,
> > which was the impetus for the entire set of fraudulent BY photos and
> > that RP and MP are connected?
>
> > Interesting...I'll have to think about that..also, interesting is DeM &
> > Roscoe White are connected to the photos, but the former at a possible
> > facilitator macro level, and the latter at the micro level... I believe
> > of the conspiracy...Laz
>
> Well think abouit this Laz...... Lee was a foreigner in the USSR....
> Do you really think the Russians would have allowed him to have a
> rifle??   Even Russian citizens weren't allowed to possess rifles.

Walt,

Hope you're keeping well.

Oswald owned a shotgun in Minsk and was a member of a hunting club.

Some of his Minsk history has been usurped and recycled as a template
to help flesh out incriminating (but false) stories back in the US.

This includes phony stories from Marina surrounding the Walker
incident (which I d not want to get into here) -- and the faked BY
photo/s.

In short (regarding the photos) - the one photo taken showed Oswald in
Minsk holding his shotgun aloft and was inscribed to his new-born
daughter. Marina panicked about this photo and spoke to RP about it -
in Russian so Marguerite could not understand. She then got the photo
and showed it to Marguerite. The next night it was ripped up burned
and flushed by Marina at the motel. Only after that, do the BY photos
suddenly get found. And the first person to mention Neely St was? Ruth
Paine.

Also consider this: Regardless of where Marina was living, Ruth just
happened to visit her on March 12, 1963 - the day LHO allegedly orders
a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. And she visits again
on March 20, 1963: the day the rifle and the revolver are allegedly
shipped. She takes Marina to a park on both occasions. Or to put it
another way... she gets her out of the house...


greg
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

[Raymond]

Walt is right --- no rifles ...
" You can't buy a rifle in Russia, you can only buy shotguns. I had a
shotgun in Russia and hunted some while there."
--- LHO

However , "A gun is a gun is a gun."..
The bottom line is that a gun is a gun is a gun. All are inert
objects, the only danger comes from the person behind the trigger.

How to learn from your mistakes
By Scott Berkun, July 17 2005
You can only learn from a mistake after you admit you’ve made it. As
soon as you start blaming other people (or the universe itself) you
distance yourself from any possible lesson. But if you courageously
stand up and honestly say “This is my mistake and I am responsible”
the possibilities for learning will move towards you. Admission of a
mistake, even if only privately to yourself, makes learning possible
by moving the focus away from blame assignment and towards
understanding. Wise people admit their mistakes easily. They know
progress accelerates when they do.

This advice runs counter to the cultural assumptions we have about
mistakes and failure, namely that they are shameful things. We’re
taught in school, in our families, or at work to feel guilty about
failure and to do whatever we can to avoid mistakes. This sense of
shame combined with the inevitability of setbacks when attempting
difficult things explains why many people give up on their goals:
they’re not prepared for the mistakes and failures they’ll face on
their way to what they want. What’s missing in many people’s beliefs
about success is the fact that the more challenging the goal, the more
frequent and difficult setbacks will be. The larger your ambitions,
the more dependent you will be on your ability to overcome and learn
from your mistakes.

But for many reasons admitting mistakes is difficult. An implied value
in many cultures is that our work represents us: if you fail a test,
then you are a failure. If you make a mistake then you are a mistake
(You may never have felt this way, but many people do. It explains the
behavior of some of your high school or college friends). Like eggs,
steak and other tasty things we are given letter grades (A, B, C, D
and F) organizing us for someone else’s consumption: universities and
employers evaluate young candidates on their grades, numbers based on
scores from tests unforgiving to mistakes.

For anyone than never discovers a deeper self-identity, based not on
lack of mistakes but on courage, compassionate intelligence,
commitment and creativity, life is a scary place made safe only by
never getting into trouble, never breaking rules and never taking the
risks that their hearts tell them they need to take.

Learning from mistakes requires three things:

1.Putting yourself in situations where you can make interesting
mistakes
2.Having the self-confidence to admit to them
3.Being courageous about making changes
This essay will cover all three. First we have to classify the
different kinds of mistakes.

The four kinds of mistakes
One way to categorize mistakes is into these categories:

Stupid: Absurdly dumb things that just happen. Stubbing your toe,
dropping your pizza on your neighbor’s fat cat or poking yourself in
the eye with a banana.
Simple: Mistakes that are avoidable but your sequence of decisions
made inevitable. Having the power go out in the middle of your party
because you forgot to pay the rent, or running out of beer at said
party because you didn’t anticipate the number of guests.
Involved: Mistakes that are understood but require effort to prevent.
Regularly arriving late to work/friends, eating fast food for lunch
every day, or going bankrupt at your start-up company because of your
complete ignorance of basic accounting.
Complex: Mistakes that have complicated causes and no obvious way to
avoid next time. Examples include making tough decisions that have bad
results, relationships that fail, or other unpleasant or unsatisfying
outcomes to important things.
(I’m sure you can come up with other categories: that’s fantastic,
please share them here. But these are the ones you’re stuck with for
the rest of this essay).

I’m leaving all philosophical questions about mistakes up to you. One
person’s pleasure is another person’s mistake: decide for yourself.
Maybe you enjoy stabbing your neighbor’s cat with a banana, who knows.
We all do things we know are bad in the long term, but are oh so good
in the short term. So regardless of where you stand, I’m working with
you. However mistakes are defined in your personal philosophy this
essay should help you learn from them.

Learning from mistakes that fall into the first two categories (Stupid
& Simple) is easy, but shallow. Once you recognize the problem and
know the better way, you should be able to avoid similar mistakes. Or
in some cases you’ll realize that no matter what you do once in a
while you’ll do stupid things (e.g. even Einstein stubbed his toes).

But these kinds of mistakes are not interesting. The lessons aren’t
deep and it’s unlikely they lead you to learn much about yourself or
anything else. For example compare these two mistakes

1.My use of dual part harmony for the 2nd trumpets in my orchestral
composition for the homeless children’s shelter benefit concert
overpowered the intended narrative of the violins.
2.I got an Oreo stuck in my underwear.
The kind of mistakes you make define you. The more interesting the
mistakes, the more interesting the life. If your biggest mistakes are
missing reruns of tv-shows or buying the wrong lottery ticket you’re
not challenging yourself enough to earn more interesting mistakes.

And since there isn’t much to learn from simple and stupid mistakes,
most people try to minimize their frequency and how much time we spend
recovering from them. Their time is better spent learning from bigger
mistakes. But if we habitually or compulsively make stupid mistakes,
then what we really have is an involved mistake.

Involved mistakes
The third pile of mistakes, Involved mistakes, requires significant
changes to avoid. These are mistakes we tend to make through either
habit or nature. But since change is so much harder than we admit, we
often suffer through the same mistakes again and again instead of
making the tough changes needed to avoid them.

Difficultly with change involves an earlier point made in this essay.
Some feel that to agree to change means there is something wrong with
them. “If I’m perfect, why would I need to change?” Since they need to
protect their idea of perfection, they refuse change (Or possibly,
even refuse to admit they did anything wrong).

But this is a trap: refusing to acknowledge mistakes, or tendencies to
make similar kinds of mistakes, is a refusal to acknowledge reality.
If you can’t see the gaps, flaws, or weaknesses in your behavior
you’re forever trapped in the same behavior and limitations you’ve
always had, possibly since you were a child (When someone tells you
you’re being a baby, they might be right).

Another challenge to change is that it may require renewing
commitments you’ve broken before, from the trivial “Yes, I’ll try to
remember to take the trash out” to the more serious “I’ll try to stop
sleeping with all of your friends”. This happens in any environment:
the workplace, friendships, romantic relationships or even commitments
you’ve made to yourself. Renewing commitments can be tough since it
requires not only admitting to the recent mistake, but acknowledging
similar mistakes you’ve made before. The feelings of failure and guilt
become so large that we don’t have the courage to try again.

This is why success in learning from mistakes often requires
involvement from other people, either for advice, training or simply
to keep you honest. A supportive friend’s, mentor’s or professional’s
perspective on your behavior will be more objective than your own and
help you identify when yhttp://www.scottberkun.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=578&action=editou’re
hedging, breaking or denying the commitments you’ve made.

In moments of weakness the only way to prevent a mistake is to enlist
someone else. “Fred, I want to play my Gamecube today but I promised
Sally I wouldn’t. Can we hang out so you can make sure I don’t do it
today?” Admitting you need help and asking for it often requires more
courage than trying to do it on your own.

The biggest lesson to learn in involved mistakes is that you have to
examine your own ability to change. Some kinds of change will be
easier for you than others and until you make mistakes and try to
correct them you won’t know which they are.

How to handle complex mistakes
The most interesting kinds of mistake are the last group: Complex
mistakes. The more complicated the mistake you’ve made, the more
patient you need to be. There’s nothing worse than flailing around
trying to fix something you don’t understand: you’ll always make
things worse.

I remember as a kid when our beloved Atari 2600 game system started
showing static on the screen during games. The solution my brother and
I came up with? Smack the machine as hard as we could (A clear sign I
had the intellect for management). Amazingly this worked for awhile,
but after weeks of regular beatings the delicate electronics
eventually gave out. We were lazy, ignorant and impatient, and
couldn’t see that our solution would work against us.

Professional investigators, like journalists, police detectives and
doctors, try to get as many perspectives on situations as possible
before taking action (Policemen use eyewitnesses, Doctors use exams
and tests, scientific studies use large sample sizes). They know that
human perception, including their own, is highly fallible and biased
by many factors. The only way to obtain an objective understanding is
to compare several different perspectives. When trying to understand
your own mistakes in complex situations you should work in the same
way.

Start by finding someone else to talk to about what happened. Even if
no one was within 50 yards when you crashed your best friend’s BMW
into your neighbor’s living room, talking to someone else gives you
the benefit of their experience applied to your situation. They may
know of someone that’s made a similar mistake or know a way to deal
with the problem that you don’t.

But most importantly, by describing what happened you are forced to
break down the chronology and clearly define (your recollection of)
the sequence of events. They may ask you questions that surface
important details you didn’t notice before. There may have been more
going on (did the brakes fail? Did you swerve to avoid your neighbor’s
daughter? etc.) than you, consumed by your emotions about your
failure, realized.

If multiple people were involved (say, your co-workers), you want to
hear each person’s account of what happened. Each person will
emphasize different aspects of the situation based on their skills,
biases, and circumstances, getting you closer to a complete view of
what took place.

If the situation was/is contentious you may need people to report
their stories independently – police investigators never have
eyewitness collaborate. They want each point of view to be delivered
unbiased by other eyewitnesses (possibly erroneous) recollections.
Later on they’ll bring each account together and see what fits and
what doesn’t.

An illustrative example comes from the book Inviting disasters
Inviting Disaster: Lessons from the edge of technology. It tells the
story of a floating dormitory for oil workers in the North Sea that
rolled over during the night killing over 100 people. The engineering
experts quickly constructed different theories and complex
explanations that focused on operational errors and management
decisions.

All of these theories were wrong. It was eventually discovered through
careful analysis that weeks earlier a crack in a support structure had
been painted over, instead of being reported and repaired. This
stupid, simple and small mistake caused the superstructure to fail,
sinking the dormitory. Without careful analysis the wrong conclusion
would have been reached (e.g. smacking the Atari) and the wrong lesson
would have been learned.

Until you work backwards for moments, hours or days before the actual
mistake event, you probably won’t see all of the contributing factors
and can’t learn all of the possible lessons. The more complex the
mistake, the further back you’ll need to go and the more careful and
open-minded you need to be in your own investigation. You may even
need to bring in an objective outsider to help sort things out. You’d
never have a suspect in a crime lead the investigation, right? Then
how can you completely trust yourself to investigate your own
mistakes?

Here some questions to ask to help your investigation:

What was the probable sequence of events?
Were their multiple small mistakes that led to a larger one?
Were there any erroneous assumptions made?
Did we have the right goals? Were we trying to solve the right
problem?
Was it possible to have recognized bad assumptions earlier?
Was there information we know now that would have been useful then?
What would we do differently if in this exact situation again?
How can we avoid getting into situations like this? (What was the kind
of situation we wanted to be in?)
Was this simply unavoidable given all of the circumstances? A failure
isn’t a mistake if you were attempting the impossible.
Has enough time passed for us to know if this is a mistake or not?
As you put together the sequence of events, you’ll recognize that
mistakes initially categorized as complex eventually break down into
smaller mistakes. The painted over crack was avoidable but happened
anyway (Stupid). Was there a system in place for avoiding these
mistakes? (Simple). Were there unaddressed patterns of behavior that
made that system fail? (Involved). Once you’ve broken a complex
mistake down you can follow the previous advice on making changes.

Humor and Courage
No amount of analysis can replace your confidence in yourself. When
you’ve made a mistake, especially a visible one that impacts other
people, it’s natural to question your ability to perform next time.
But you must get past your doubts. The best you can do is study the
past, practice for the situations you expect, and get back in the
game. Your studying of the past should help broaden your perspective.
You want to be aware of how many other smart, capable well meaning
people have made similar mistakes to the one you made, and went on to
even bigger mistakes, I mean successes, in the future.

One way to know you’ve reached a healthy place is your sense of humor.
It might take a few days, but eventually you’ll see some comedy in
what happened. When friends tell stories of their mistakes it makes
you laugh, right? Well when you can laugh at your own mistakes you
know you’ve accepted it and no longer judge yourself on the basis of
one single event. Reaching this kind of perspective is very important
in avoiding future mistakes. Humor loosens up your psychology and
prevents you from obsessing about the past. It’s easy to make new
mistakes by spending too much energy protecting against the previous
ones. Remember the saying “a man fears the tiger that bit him last,
instead of the tiger that will bite him next”.

So the most important lesson in all of mistake making is to trust that
while mistakes are inevitable, if you can learn from the current one,
you’ll also be able to learn from future ones. No matter when happens
tomorrow you’ll be able to get value from it, and apply it to the day
after that. Progress won’t be a straight line but if you keep learning
you will have more successes than failures, and the mistakes you make
along the way will help you get to where you want to go.

The learning from mistakes checklist
Accepting responsibility makes learning possible.
Don’t equate making mistakes with being a mistake.
You can’t change mistakes, but you can choose how to respond to them.
Growth starts when you can see room for improvement.
Work to understand why it happened and what the factors were.
What information could have avoided the mistake?
What small mistakes, in sequence, contributed to the bigger mistake?
Are there alternatives you should have considered but did not?
What kinds of changes are required to avoid making this mistake again?
What kinds of change are difficult for you?
How do you think your behavior should/would change in you were in a
similar situation again?
Work to understand the mistake until you can make fun of it (or not
want to kill others that make fun).
Don’t over-compensate: the next situation won’t be the same as the
last.
References
Inviting Disaster: Lessons from the edge of technology by James
Chiles. A series of magazine style essays about major technological
disasters in the last 100 years. Includes the Challenge shuttle,
Apollo 13, & Three mile island.

The Logic of Failure by Dietrich Dorner. An analysis of decision
making mistakes in complex environments. More academic than Inviting
disaster, but also more prescriptive.

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Another interesting aspect of the BY photos as I mentioned a little
while ago, is that the 133-C print as found in the pssession of Roscoe
White's family in the mid 70's, is the same pose that Det. Bobby Brown
utilized in the so-called" recreation photos" that were found in the
Dallas Archives in the early nineties by the La Fontaines, as a result
of the hoopla over JFK.

So, it shows the DPD had that print and didn't turn it over to the WC.
There is no reason whatsoever not to turn it over, except that it
clearly is the most bogus looking of the 3 shots...and may well have
been the trial run of the pictures, but was deemed not up to muster and
may not have passed scrutiny...Laz

[Bud]

<snicker> Oh sure you would, all this gameplaying is driven by the
desperate belief that Oswald was a patsy.

> There is no actual hard evidence.

Photos with corrobborating witness testimony isn`t enough? What do
you want, a turd left in the toilet DNA tested?

And you certainly give no weight to the lockpicking claims with
their lack of hard evidence, right?

> In fact, some evidence points the
> other way (e.g) meter readers reporting no one living there during the
> time they were supposed to be;

How would they know? How would they even remember?

> very very little electric or gas usage
> - more considtent with short visits by the owner, or by a single
> person living very frugally.

Where you getting this stuff from? Did you see the bills? What was
the name on them?

> And one former resident downstairs claims Marina spoke English.

Did the resident say she was an American?

> A couple of possibilities:
>
> Another couple, coincidently named Oswald, lived there
>
> Lee parked Marina and baby there for a week or so while he was off
> doing whatever.
>
> As I said, research is ongoing, with former residents having been
> tracked down by various people and interviewed by a very diligent
> young guy from Alaska.

50 year old memories, very compelling.

[greg]

If I relied on "belief", I'd behave like you, and just go by what's in
someone's book, and when something crops up that may burst my bubble,
I'd just make stuff up and/or construct strawmen etc. Basically
whatever it took to keep the illusion.

But as you'll see, what I do that's different to you is look for the
facts.

> > There is no actual hard evidence.
>
>   Photos with corrobborating witness testimony isn`t enough? What do
> you want, a turd left in the toilet DNA tested?

There are massive problems with the BY photos (in case you've
misunderstood what I've already posted), and we are currently checking
with the former neighbors to ascertain if the "June" photo is actually
one of their kids. If it is in fact, June, then at very least, Marina
and June were staying there.

>   And you certainly give no weight to the lockpicking claims with
> their lack of hard evidence, right?

The claim was made contemporaneously, and without any obvious reason
to make it up. The fact that he stated Oswald and Marina rented from
him doesn't make him part of any plot (although that possibility
cannot be entire ruled out). It is also possible someone using
Oswald's name, rented there - but I am leaning towards his actually
having rented it specifically to park Marina and June for a week or so
while he attended to "secret men's business".

> > In fact, some evidence points the
> > other way (e.g) meter readers reporting no one living there during the
> > time they were supposed to be;
>
>   How would they know? How would they even remember?

It was part of their job. Texas Power and Light relied upon the
readers noting when a place became occupied. The power was never
disconnected when an occupant moved. It would simply contact the new
occupant as advised by the Meter Reader.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=997392

> > very very little electric or gas usage
> > - more considtent with short visits by the owner, or by a single
> > person living very frugally.
>
>   Where you getting this stuff from? Did you see the bills? What was
> the name on them?

Same place I got the above. It's called "the records". When you're
ready for a dose of reality, you might want to check them out. The
only hint of a record by any utility company is that the employee
named in the above document wrote the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" in a
margin of the file for the address. He had no memory of the
circumstances by which he came by the name, but guessed it was
obtained from another utility company, or through neighborhood
inquiries. Problem is, the surly Oswald never spoke to anyone, and the
only neighbors who claimed to remember him at all were the ones down
stairs. It is unlikely in the extreme that they knew any more than his
first name - and likely not even that - and the only other utility co.
involved (gas) was no wiser than the electricity co. about who was
living there.The only possible means through which they could have
gotten the name was from Marina or from the owner, or from another as
yet unknown third party. But in the case of Marina or the owner, the
source would have been noted, so this seems more like an anonymous
tipoff - and my money is on that ever helpful suburban housewife
extraordinaire, Ruth Paine.

> > And one former resident downstairs claims Marina spoke English.
>
>   Did the resident say she was an American?

Only had a slight accent, otherwise fluent. But then, the
conversations were not about earth-shattering events or quantum
physics. Mostly about babies etc. Still, the gist is, that Marina's
English seems to have been much better than we've led to believe. It's
just a matter of how much better...

> > A couple of possibilities:
>
> > Another couple, coincidently namedOswald, lived there

>
> > Lee parked Marina and baby there for a week or so while he was off
> > doing whatever.
>
> > As I said, research is ongoing, with former residents having been
> > tracked down by various people and interviewed by a very diligent
> > young guy from Alaska.
>
>   50 year old memories, very compelling.

Pre-judging research before it is presented in it's entirety on the
basis that you fear it may disabuse you of your LN fantasy; indeed,
very compelling.

Greg
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

[Walt]

On Jan 12, 5:46 am, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 9:34 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 1:51 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > Greg,Somewhere I recall...(anyway, I haven't read Meagher, read around a
> > > 100 JFK Assassination books, but can't read them all, nor would I want
> > > too, though there is some very unique interesting info. in some
> > > otherwise mediocre books) that Marguerite in Ft. Worth had destroyed a
> > > BY Photo ofOswaldholding a rfile over his head? So, you are saying
> > > that this was actually a photo of Lee in Minsk that Marina destroyed,
> > > which was the impetus for the entire set of fraudulent BY photos and
> > > that RP and MP are connected?
>
> > > Interesting...I'll have to think about that..also, interesting is DeM &
> > > Roscoe White are connected to the photos, but the former at a possible
> > > facilitator macro level, and the latter at the micro level... I believe
> > > of the conspiracy...Laz
>
> > Well think abouit this Laz...... Lee was a foreigner in the USSR....
> > Do you really think the Russians would have allowed him to have a
> > rifle??   Even Russian citizens weren't allowed to possess rifles.
>
> Walt,
>
> Hope you're keeping well.

Thank you, I'm doing fine...just getting ornerier. Good to hear from
you again.

>
> Oswald owned a shotgun in Minsk and was a member of a hunting club.
>
> Some of his Minsk history has been usurped and recycled as a template
> to help flesh out incriminating (but false) stories back in the US.
>
> This includes phony stories from Marina surrounding the Walker
> incident (which I d not want to get into here) -- and the faked BY
> photo/s.

Greg, there's simply too much evidence that indicates that Oswald
lived on Neeley Street and ordered a rifle from Kleins while he was
living there. He also had Marina take a photo (CE 133A) of him with a
model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano in the back yard of 214 Neeley street.
I don't believe that Marina took more than one photo of Lee holding
those stage props. (communist news papers, and a rifle)

Just think about that for a minute.....WHY would Lee Oswald want to
have a photgraphic record that literally screams...."HEY!, LOOK I'M A
ARMED AND READY COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONARY"

He created that photo at the time that he was assembling the note book
that laid out his plans to attck General Walker. That notebook
contained photos of the vicinity of Walker's house, maps of the
surrounding vicinity, and a BY photo.
Lee INTENDED for this to "fall into the hands" of the police after the
staged shooting at Walker's house ( an event that left a bullet hole
in Walker's window but did little damage beyond that. )

>
> In short (regarding the photos) - the one photo taken showed Oswald in
> Minsk holding his shotgun aloft and was inscribed to his new-born
> daughter.

I believe Marina said that Lee inscribed the photo ( CE 133A). There
is NO PROOF that any photo of Oswald holding a long arm aloft ever
existed. I know that mama Oswald claimed she had seen a photo like
that but it takes a very gullible person to accept some of the things
that Lee's mother said.

Marina panicked about this photo and spoke to RP about it -
> in Russian so Marguerite could not understand. She then got the photo
> and showed it to Marguerite. The next night it was ripped up burned
> and flushed by Marina at the motel. Only after that, do the BY photos
> suddenly get found. And the first person to mention Neely St was? Ruth
> Paine.
>
> Also consider this: Regardless of where Marina was living, Ruth just
> happened to visit her on March 12, 1963 - the day LHO allegedly orders
> a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. And she visits again
> on March 20, 1963: the day the rifle and the revolver are allegedly
> shipped. She takes Marina to a park on both occasions. Or to put it
> another way... she gets her out of the house...

I agree with you in suspecting Ruth and Mike Paine.... Ruth was a
paid informant for Hoover. She was paid to take Marina into her home
where she could keep an eye on her. Hoover suspected Marina of being a
KGB agent and paid Ruth Paine to watch Marina. Of course the FBI had
to cover up this fact and pretend that dear little Ruthie was just a
kind hearted, good samaritian, who would spend many of her dollars
transporting and supporting Marina and the Oswald family.

I'm convinced that Hoover knew long before the assassination that Lee
had ordered a rifle from Klein's. He knew about the hoax at Walker's
and knew that Lee had created a fake dossier that would be excellent
material with which to blackmail Oswald if the time came that he
needed to use Oswald. (Hoover had files on thousands of people, and
he used them to control senators and congressmen ( like those on the
Warren Commission)


>
> greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bud]

You can lie to yourself if you like, you aren`t lying to me. You are
desperate for support for the idea that Oswald was a patsy. It`s clear
by *where* you are looking. Oswald`s neighbors from 50 years ago, are
you kidding me?

> > > There is no actual hard evidence.
>
> >   Photos with corrobborating witness testimony isn`t enough? What do
> > you want, a turd left in the toilet DNA tested?
>
> There are massive problems with the BY photos (in case you've
> misunderstood what I've already posted),

The only problem is that they conflict with what you want to believe
about Oswald.

> and we are currently checking
> with the former neighbors to ascertain if the "June" photo is actually
> one of their kids. If it is in fact, June, then at very least, Marina
> and June were staying there.

This is progress to you? This is something that needs to be solided
up? Pick a tree and bark up it.

> >   And you certainly give no weight to the lockpicking claims with
> > their lack of hard evidence, right?
>
> The claim was made contemporaneously, and without any obvious reason
> to make it up.

You have ne reason to doubt it because you like the sound of it.
This is always the CTer criteria, collecting suspicious sounding
things is a big part of this hobby you partake in. Of course these
things can never, ever, ever taken anywhere, but they are good where
they are, suspicious sounding.

> The fact that he stated Oswald and Marina rented from
> him doesn't make him part of any plot (although that possibility
> cannot be entire ruled out). It is also possible someone using
> Oswald's name, rented there - but I am leaning towards his actually
> having rented it specifically to park Marina and June for a week or so
> while he attended to "secret men's business".

Of course you are.

> > > In fact, some evidence points the
> > > other way (e.g) meter readers reporting no one living there during the
> > > time they were supposed to be;
>
> >   How would they know? How would they even remember?
>
> It was part of their job. Texas Power and Light relied upon the
> readers noting when a place became occupied. The power was never
> disconnected when an occupant moved. It would simply contact the new

> occupant as advised by the Meter Reader.http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

Did these meter readers go inside and check the apartment, or did
they have some mystical ability to determine the occupied ones from
the unoccupied from the outside?

> > > very very little electric or gas usage
> > > - more considtent with short visits by the owner, or by a single
> > > person living very frugally.
>
> >   Where you getting this stuff from? Did you see the bills? What was
> > the name on them?
>
> Same place I got the above. It's called "the records".

The records that had a note saying the apartment was occupied by Lee
Harvey Oswald.

>When you're
> ready for a dose of reality, you might want to check them out. The
> only hint of a record by any utility company is that the employee
> named in the above document wrote the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" in a
> margin of the file for the address. He had no memory of the
> circumstances by which he came by the name, but guessed it was
> obtained from another utility company, or through neighborhood
> inquiries. Problem is, the surly Oswald never spoke to anyone, and the
> only neighbors who claimed to remember him at all were the ones down
> stairs. It is unlikely in the extreme that they knew any more than his
> first name - and likely not even that - and the only other utility co.
> involved (gas) was no wiser than the electricity co. about who was
> living there.The only possible means through which they could have
> gotten the name was from Marina or from the owner, or from another as
> yet unknown third party. But in the case of Marina or the owner, the
> source would have been noted,

You just made that up, didn`t you?

> so this seems more like an anonymous
> tipoff - and my money is on that ever helpful suburban housewife
> extraordinaire, Ruth Paine.

It must be her, you`ve ruled everyone else on the planet out as they
conflict with your ideas. Good work, greg!

> > > And one former resident downstairs claims Marina spoke English.
>
> >   Did the resident say she was an American?
>
> Only had a slight accent, otherwise fluent.

Not what I asked you.

> But then, the
> conversations were not about earth-shattering events or quantum
> physics. Mostly about babies etc. Still, the gist is, that Marina's
> English seems to have been much better than we've led to believe. It's
> just a matter of how much better...
>
> > > A couple of possibilities:
>
> > > Another couple, coincidently namedOswald, lived there
>
> > > Lee parked Marina and baby there for a week or so while he was off
> > > doing whatever.
>
> > > As I said, research is ongoing, with former residents having been
> > > tracked down by various people and interviewed by a very diligent
> > > young guy from Alaska.
>
> >   50 year old memories, very compelling.
>
> Pre-judging research before it is presented in it's entirety on the
> basis that you fear it may disabuse you of your LN fantasy; indeed,
> very compelling.

The case doesn`t need more mush, it needs less. What can 50 year old
memories of neighbors be but mush?

> Greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

[greg]

On Jan 14, 6:08 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 7:00 am, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:

SNIP

>
> > If I relied on "belief", I'd behave like you, and just go by what's in
> > someone's book, and when something crops up that may burst my bubble,
> > I'd just make stuff up and/or construct strawmen etc. Basically
> > whatever it took to keep the illusion.
>
> > But as you'll see, what I do that's different to you is look for the
> > facts.
>
>   You can lie to yourself if you like, you aren`t lying to me. You are

> desperate for support for the idea thatOswaldwas a patsy. It`s clear
> by *where* you are looking.Oswald`s neighbors from 50 years ago, are
> you kidding me?

1. Those 50 year old memories are holding up well, since memories of
the layout and other minor details about the structure of the building
have been checked and found to be accurate.

2. It's interesting, but wholly expected, that you you omit that the
records - made in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, are
also being gone through with a fine tooth comb. It is why I such
detail as how little gas/electricity was used - the full extent of the
duties of the meter readers and how the utility companies operated.

> > > > There is no actual hard evidence.
>
> > >   Photos with corrobborating witness testimony isn`t enough? What do
> > > you want, a turd left in the toilet DNA tested?
>
> > There are massive problems with the BY photos (in case you've
> > misunderstood what I've already posted),
>
>   The only problem is that they conflict with what you want to believe
> about Oswald.

No, sir. The reality is what it is. And the reality is that the one
photo Marina destroyed showed Oswald with one weapon (not two) and no
newspapers. The reality is that at that time, there was no discussion,
no knowledge, no proof of the existence of the far more incriminating
photos. They surfaced well after this one (completely non-
incriminating) photo was destroyed.

> > and we are currently checking
> > with the former neighbors to ascertain if the "June" photo is actually
> > one of their kids. If it is in fact, June, then at very least, Marina
> > and June were staying there.
>
>   This is progress to you? This is something that needs to be solided
> up? Pick a tree and bark up it.

It's called research and fact-checking. You may have heard of it at
some stage....?

> > >   And you certainly give no weight to the lockpicking claims with
> > > their lack of hard evidence, right?
>
> > The claim was made contemporaneously, and without any obvious reason
> > to make it up.
>
>   You have ne reason to doubt it because you like the sound of it.
> This is always the CTer criteria, collecting suspicious sounding
> things is a big part of this hobby you partake in. Of course these
> things can never, ever, ever taken anywhere, but they are good where
> they are, suspicious sounding.

No one is collecting "suspicious sounding things". If that were the
case, I'd have all your posts saved.

This started as an investigation to prove or disprove Oswald's claim
to Fritz that he never lived at the Neely St apartments.

The evidence that he lived there turns out to be rather meager. No
rent receipts or other records and the records of utility companies
having any one living there until well after they had allegedly moved
in. All in all - no paper trail placing them there at all. Just the
word of the owner - who provided no proof - that someone named Oswald
rented of him - and those 50 year old memories of downstairs neighbors
that you don't like at all. Apart from that, we have the photo
purporting to be June on the balcony and the infamous BY photos.
That's it - that's your case.

> > The fact that he statedOswaldand Marina rented from

> > him doesn't make him part of any plot (although that possibility
> > cannot be entire ruled out). It is also possible someone using

> >Oswald'sname, rented there - but I am leaning towards his actually

> > having rented it specifically to park Marina and June for a week or so
> > while he attended to "secret men's business".
>
>   Of course you are.

That is the only thing that makes sense of the lack of electricity and
gas used and the fact that Marina is remembered far more than Oswald,
who is barely recalled at all. Are you denying Oswald was secretive
and may have wanted to get away from Marina for periods of time to do
whatever it was he doing? Whether that's planning a hit on Walker;
planning his NO FPCC games, or whatever? Do I really have to make
your case for you? Are you really that lazy, or lacking in interest?
If so, it really does beg the question of why you are here at all...

> > > > In fact, some evidence points the
> > > > other way (e.g) meter readers reporting no one living there during the
> > > > time they were supposed to be;
>
> > >   How would they know? How would they even remember?
>
> > It was part of their job. Texas Power and Light relied upon the
> > readers noting when a place became occupied. The power was never
> > disconnected when an occupant moved. It would simply contact the new
> > occupant as advised by the Meter Reader.http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
>   Did these meter readers go inside and check the apartment, or did
> they have some mystical ability to determine the occupied ones from
> the unoccupied from the outside?

There were stairs from which one had a view inside.

> > > > very very little electric or gas usage
> > > > - more considtent with short visits by the owner, or by a single
> > > > person living very frugally.
>
> > >   Where you getting this stuff from? Did you see the bills? What was
> > > the name on them?
>
> > Same place I got the above. It's called "the records".
>
>   The records that had a note saying the apartment was occupied by Lee
> HarveyOswald.

No. The note did not say that at all. His name was merely written in a
margin of the file. It is not the usual record-keeping practice of
utility companies to place the name of a resident in the margin of a
file, and then to have no idea what the circumstances were that led it
to being there.

> >When you're
> > ready for a dose of reality, you might want to check them out. The
> > only hint of a record by any utility company is that the employee

> > named in the above document wrote the name "Lee HarveyOswald" in a

> > margin of the file for the address. He had no memory of the
> > circumstances by which he came by the name, but guessed it was
> > obtained from another utility company, or through neighborhood

> > inquiries. Problem is, the surlyOswaldnever spoke to anyone, and the

> > only neighbors who claimed to remember him at all were the ones down
> > stairs. It is unlikely in the extreme that they knew any more than his
> > first name - and likely not even that - and the only other utility co.
> > involved (gas) was no wiser than the electricity co. about who was
> > living there.The only possible means through which they could have
> > gotten the name was from Marina or from the owner, or from another as
> > yet unknown third party. But in the case of Marina or the owner, the
> > source would have been noted,
>
>   You just made that up, didn`t you?

What? The note is NOTED by the FBI in its interview with Mr. Fish
which I linked to. If the information had been obtained in the normal
manner - ie from the meter reader advising the place was now occupied
and someone going out to obtain the occupant's details directly from
the occupant, or, if not at home, from the landlord or neighbor, the
details so obtained, would have been properly recorded in the manner
proscribed by the utility company's normal record-keeping procedures.
Unless you want to argue that scrawling a name in the margin of a file
is standard record-keeping practice, we are left with an anonymous
phone tip as the most likely source.

> > so this seems more like an anonymous
> > tipoff - and my money is on that ever helpful suburban housewife
> > extraordinaire, Ruth Paine.
>
>   It must be her, you`ve ruled everyone else on the planet out as they
> conflict with your ideas. Good work, greg!

The first person to mention *anything* about Neely St was Michael
Paine - and the Paine's are enmeshed further via the complete and
utter nonsense surrounding ownership of various cameras.

> > > > And one former resident downstairs claims Marina spoke English.
>
> > >   Did the resident say she was an American?
>
> > Only had a slight accent, otherwise fluent.
>
>   Not what I asked you.

Perhaps you should talk to her yourself?

Are you aware that there were at least three other Russian brides of
Texans - all of whom attended the Ford party where Oswald and Marina
were introduced to the White Russian community... and all of whom
spoke English far better than Marina allegedly did?

Maybe one of those was visiting and was mistaken for Marina? Or maybe
one of those was staying there posing as Marina?

Do you understand what I just did there.... it's what I have been
doing all along... considering "non-suspicious/non-conspiratorial"
explanations alongside other explanations outside the box.

One doesn't get to the facts by being one-eyed. It's why you haven't
budged from the position held by the WC in 1964 - despite all the
evidence it had at it's disposal. A one-eyed view of a one-eyed
report.

Greg
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

> > But then, the
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[bigdog]

Why would anyone budge from the truth?

> despite all the
> evidence it had at it's disposal. A one-eyed view of a one-eyed
> report.

ALL the hard evidence pointed to Oswald and nobody else. I won't even
ask you to list any hard evidence that anyone else was involved
because I know that is impossible. I know that because whenever I ask
a CT to do that, they are unable to do so. The WC didn't go in for the
type of imaginative speculation that fuels all conspiracy theories.
They took the Jack Webb approach. "Just the facts, m'am". If that's
being one eyed, I'm glad they were one eyed.
>
> Greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum
>
You are living a pipe dream if you think anybody is going to reopen
the JFK investigation.

[greg]

On Jan 15, 3:36 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 9:23 pm, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 6:08 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > One doesn't get to the facts by being one-eyed. It's why you haven't
> > budged from the position held by the WC in 1964 -
>
> Why would anyone budge from the truth?

Why would anyone blindly accept as being factual, a government report,
at the height of the cold war in which it was known to be feared that
certain conclusions may result in WWIII?

Unless you commit to examining the actual evidence in the case, you
are being one-eyed in support of a one-eyed report,

> > despite all the
> > evidence it had at it's disposal. A one-eyed view of a one-eyed
> > report.
>
> ALL the hard evidence pointed to Oswald and nobody else.

It was obvious Bud was clueless on the subject at hand - Neely St.
Why? Because he just accepts what the report says and had no idea that
it had so little backing it.

I won't even
> ask you to list any hard evidence that anyone else was involved
> because I know that is impossible. I know that because whenever I ask
> a CT to do that, they are unable to do so.

That is because you deliberately set the bar impossibly high for CT,
while keeping it at ground level for the WC which filled in blanks all
over the place with CONJECTURE.

The WC didn't go in for the
> type of imaginative speculation that fuels all conspiracy theories.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but any speculation on my part
is well-grounded in the evidence.

It takes real "speculative imagination" to hope people will believe
that x-rays of Ruby's mother's teeth, have more evidentiary
importance than say, tracking down the Cuban orderly at Parkland
Hospital who was overheard by the wife of a detective (Abbott) saying
that JFK would by killed when he came to Dallas. No effort at all was
made to find this person, despite being told by Mrs Abbott who could
supply the fellow's name.

> They took the Jack Webb approach. "Just the facts, m'am". If that's
> being one eyed, I'm glad they were one eyed.

Um. You need to go check out some witness depositions. Witnesses were
asked time and time again to give testimony when they clearly could
not be definite. In some cases, the lawyers had to stoop to leading
questions to get the desired answer.

> You are living a pipe dream if you think anybody is going to reopen
> the JFK investigation.

Well then, you needn't lose any sleep over it.

Greg
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net

[Jean]

I disagree, Greg. I checked a few footnotes in the WR's
section on Neely and found the following:

Oswald gave the Neely address to the Texas Employment
Commission:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0117b.htm

The Oswalds' landlady on Elsbeth, Mrs. Tobias, testified
that they moved to Neely Street, which was nearby. (X, 241)

A letter from Marina to Ruth giving her new address has a
map and Neely street on the envelope (bottom of page), postmarked
March 8:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0054a.htm

There may be even more, if you keep digging.

Jean

> Greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum
>
>
>
> > > But then, the
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The evidence that he [LHO] lived there [on Neely St. in Dallas] turns out to be rather meager." <<<

Therefore, if Oswald never lived there, we've got yet another example
of a bunch of plotters acting like morons and doing things to
supposedly frame Oswald that only an idiot would want to do -- like
faking a series of photos that were taken from a backyard on Neely
Street where the patsy NEVER LIVED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Brilliant plan there.

I wonder how the conspirators were going to cover their asses on that
one? Did they just hope that Lee Oswald and Marina and Ruth Paine
would say that the Oswalds lived on Neely in 1963--even though they
never did live there at all?

(Why does stupid shit like this even come up?)

[Walt]

On Jan 15, 12:58 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The evidence that he [LHO] lived there [on Neely St. in Dallas] turns out to be rather meager." <<<
>
> Therefore, if Oswald never lived there, we've got yet another example
> of a bunch of plotters acting like morons and doing things to
> supposedly frame Oswald that only an idiot would want to do -- like
> faking a series of photos that were taken from a backyard on Neely
> Street where the patsy NEVER LIVED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It's obvious the person who dreamed up this silly theory believes that
the BY photo is not authentic was created for the purpose of framing
Lee Oswald in the murder of President Kennedy.

This ideas is ludicrous, and needs to be discarded before the likes of
Rob Caprio, and Gary Bergman embrace it, and it gets legs that will
keep it going for the next twenty years. At the time the BY photo
was created by Lee Oswald
he and Marina were living at 214 Neeley street. At that time there was
a plot afoot to stage a hoax the appeared to be an attempt on General
Walker's life. Oswald was involved in the hoax and created a dossier
that a blind man could have seen as a fake.

Oswald assembled in a note book a dossier that detailed how he
planned to attack the general that JFK had cashiered in April of 1961
after the BOP fiasco.This notebook contained photos of Walker's hows
and photos of areas surrounding Walker's house. Lee Oswald created a
photo of himself that a uncritical person might believe was a bonifide
portrait, but a critical eye would see that photo as a laughable
attempt to create a portrait of a armed and ready communist
revolutionary.

This is the major problem for CT's...... They believe that the BY
photo is incrininating and damning evidence that Oswald plotted and
intended to kill JFK. They can't open their eyes and SEE the BY photo
for what it is....A buffoons attempt at creating a self portrait to
depict himself as a Castro loving communist revolutionary.

Oswald's amateur deception is so patently clear it's a wonder that
much of CT lore is based on this silly photo.

[Bud]

On Jan 14, 9:23 pm, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 6:08 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 13, 7:00 am, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>
>
> > > If I relied on "belief", I'd behave like you, and just go by what's in
> > > someone's book, and when something crops up that may burst my bubble,
> > > I'd just make stuff up and/or construct strawmen etc. Basically
> > > whatever it took to keep the illusion.
>
> > > But as you'll see, what I do that's different to you is look for the
> > > facts.
>
> >   You can lie to yourself if you like, you aren`t lying to me. You are
> > desperate for support for the idea thatOswaldwas a patsy. It`s clear
> > by *where* you are looking.Oswald`s neighbors from 50 years ago, are
> > you kidding me?
>
> 1. Those 50 year old memories are holding up well, since memories of
> the layout and other minor details about the structure of the building
> have been checked and found to be accurate.

It`s mush. Useless. Think about it, think about your 3rd grade
English class. Can you remember who sat in front of you, left, right,
behind? Can you remember their names? These were significant people in
your life decades ago, but I bet you can`t remember them today. And
even if you could contact all your classmates, and ask them what they
remember about who sat where, do you think you could reconstruct where
everyone sat in the class using this information? Not in a million
years, you are going to have the vaguest impressions and conflicting
information to work with. And it`s even worse trying to dredge up
memories of the loner kid that nobody played with.

> 2. It's interesting, but wholly expected, that you you omit that the
> records - made in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, are
> also being gone through with a fine tooth comb. It is why I such
> detail as how little gas/electricity was used - the full extent of the
> duties of the meter readers and how the utility companies operated.

You go through the evidence with a fine tooth comb and you find some
tidbit you find suspicious and you start imagining and creating. It`s
all part of the hobby, greg.

> > > > > There is no actual hard evidence.
>
> > > >   Photos with corrobborating witness testimony isn`t enough? What do
> > > > you want, a turd left in the toilet DNA tested?
>
> > > There are massive problems with the BY photos (in case you've
> > > misunderstood what I've already posted),
>
> >   The only problem is that they conflict with what you want to believe
> > about Oswald.
>
> No, sir. The reality is what it is. And the reality is that the one
> photo Marina destroyed showed Oswald with one weapon (not two) and no
> newspapers.

No, that is just what you`ve chosen to believe.

It`s possible if you showed one of the BY photos to 10 people and
asked them months later about what the photo showed some of them would
say "a guy with a rifle", neglecting to mention the other details.

> The reality is that at that time, there was no discussion,
> no knowledge, no proof of the existence of the far more incriminating
> photos. They surfaced well after this one (completely non-
> incriminating) photo was destroyed.

They showed the photo of Oswald holding the rifle to him the day of
the assassination (or the day after, I forget which).

> > > and we are currently checking
> > > with the former neighbors to ascertain if the "June" photo is actually
> > > one of their kids. If it is in fact, June, then at very least, Marina
> > > and June were staying there.
>
> >   This is progress to you? This is something that needs to be solided
> > up? Pick a tree and bark up it.
>
> It's called research and fact-checking.

It`s called chasing your tail. This "research" can`t possibly go
anywhere.

>You may have heard of it at
> some stage....?
>
> > > >   And you certainly give no weight to the lockpicking claims with
> > > > their lack of hard evidence, right?
>
> > > The claim was made contemporaneously, and without any obvious reason
> > > to make it up.
>
> >   You have ne reason to doubt it because you like the sound of it.
> > This is always the CTer criteria, collecting suspicious sounding
> > things is a big part of this hobby you partake in. Of course these
> > things can never, ever, ever taken anywhere, but they are good where
> > they are, suspicious sounding.
>
> No one is collecting "suspicious sounding things".

You didn`t include the ominous locking picking account? Surely
"they" were up to something again, no? And just as surely you can
never go anywhere with this. So it goes on the list with all the other
suspicious things you can go nowhere with. Sometimes you try to put it
together with some other suspicious sounding thing, the idea being to
make some kind of suspicious sounding thing quilt. All part of the
game.

> If that were the
> case, I'd have all your posts saved.

You should, you wouldn`t be wasting your time chasing down Oswald`s
neighbors from 5 decades ago. Call off the guy from Alaska and tell
him to go hunt moose, he might bag a moose.

> This started as an investigation to prove or disprove Oswald's claim
> to Fritz that he never lived at the Neely St apartments.

It started out as a desperate attempt to support one of Oswald`s
lies.

> The evidence that he lived there turns out to be rather meager.

Just a bunch of corroborating information from a wide variety of
sources. If only your ideas had such meager support.

> No
> rent receipts or other records and the records of utility companies
> having any one living there until well after they had allegedly moved
> in.

What good is focusing on what you don`t have?

> All in all - no paper trail placing them there at all.

The note in the file of this apartment naming Oswald as the tenant
isn`t paper evidence? And Jean found this (good work, Jean!).

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0117b.htm

> Just the
> word of the owner - who provided no proof - that someone named Oswald
> rented of him - and those 50 year old memories of downstairs neighbors
> that you don't like at all.  Apart from that, we have the photo
> purporting to be June on the balcony and the infamous BY photos.
> That's it - that's your case.

With all that your investigation must have determine Oswald lied to
Fritz, right?

The next question you can look into is why Oswald would lie about
that, but I don`t suppose you`ll find that worthy of any "research".

> > > The fact that he statedOswaldand Marina rented from
> > > him doesn't make him part of any plot (although that possibility
> > > cannot be entire ruled out). It is also possible someone using
> > >Oswald'sname, rented there - but I am leaning towards his actually
> > > having rented it specifically to park Marina and June for a week or so
> > > while he attended to "secret men's business".
>
> >   Of course you are.
>
> That is the only thing that makes sense of the lack of electricity and
> gas used and the fact that Marina is remembered far more than Oswald,
> who is barely recalled at all.

<snicker> Yah, the only thing that makes sense is some fantastic
plot. And it`s not that you are eager to go in that direction, is it,
greg?

> Are you denying Oswald was secretive
> and may have wanted to get away from Marina for periods of time to do
> whatever it was he doing? Whether that's planning a hit on Walker;
> planning his NO FPCC  games, or whatever?  Do I really have to make
> your case for you?

You are looking in all the wrong places. You ignore the huge
blinking signs and chase mirages. You seek enlightenment in tea
leaves. Stop me before I metaphor again.

> Are you really that lazy, or lacking in interest?
> If so, it really does beg the question of why you are here at all...

I`m here to bug you, greg. To annoy you with truths you`d rather not
face about yourself and to expose you as a game playing hobbyist.

> > > > > In fact, some evidence points the
> > > > > other way (e.g) meter readers reporting no one living there during the
> > > > > time they were supposed to be;
>
> > > >   How would they know? How would they even remember?
>
> > > It was part of their job. Texas Power and Light relied upon the
> > > readers noting when a place became occupied. The power was never
> > > disconnected when an occupant moved. It would simply contact the new
> > > occupant as advised by the Meter Reader.http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> >   Did these meter readers go inside and check the apartment, or did
> > they have some mystical ability to determine the occupied ones from
> > the unoccupied from the outside?
>
> There were stairs from which one had a view inside.

But you really can`t establish the meter reader climbed those
stairs, can you? Or what kind of privacy laws he`d be breaking if he
did such a thing. Or if the windows had shades or blinds. Or if they
were just out when the reader came. Or if the meter reader just asked
another person who was unaware that a tenant had taken over that
apartment. You really have to rule out a bunch of things before you
can establish the meter reader was correct in declaring the apartment
"unoccupied" the one visit. And you`ll never be able to, so what is
the point?

> > > > > very very little electric or gas usage
> > > > > - more considtent with short visits by the owner, or by a single
> > > > > person living very frugally.
>
> > > >   Where you getting this stuff from? Did you see the bills? What was
> > > > the name on them?
>
> > > Same place I got the above. It's called "the records".
>
> >   The records that had a note saying the apartment was occupied by Lee
> > HarveyOswald.
>
> No. The note did not say that at all. His name was merely written in a
> margin of the file.

That isn`t what the source you linked to said. See the bottom
here...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0117b.htm

Not margin, note.

> It is not the usual record-keeping practice of
> utility companies to place the name of a resident in the margin of a
> file, and then to have no idea what the circumstances were that led it
> to being there.

It`s self evident the note was to identify the occupant.

The existence of the note itself without any attributation argues
against your claim that the person who supplied the information would
be noted. See how that works?

> > > so this seems more like an anonymous
> > > tipoff - and my money is on that ever helpful suburban housewife
> > > extraordinaire, Ruth Paine.
>
> >   It must be her, you`ve ruled everyone else on the planet out as they
> > conflict with your ideas. Good work, greg!
>
> The first person to mention *anything* about Neely St was Michael
> Paine -

Don`t be silly, I`m sure Oswald and Marina talked about it before
alerting Micheal Paine.

> and the Paine's are enmeshed further via the complete and
> utter nonsense surrounding ownership of various cameras.

More suspicious sounding things.

> > > > > And one former resident downstairs claims Marina spoke English.
>
> > > >   Did the resident say she was an American?
>
> > > Only had a slight accent, otherwise fluent.
>
> >   Not what I asked you.
>
> Perhaps you should talk to her yourself?

What good would it do. Of what evidential value is her impressions
on how good Marina`s English was?

> Are you aware that there were at least three other Russian brides of
> Texans - all of whom attended the Ford party where Oswald and Marina
> were introduced to the White Russian community... and all of whom
> spoke English far better than Marina allegedly did?

Did the witness say he/she was speaking to one of those?

And this is where you get when you try and make everything witnesses
supply "fit". Different people name Oswald living there, different
Russian brides.

> Maybe one of those was visiting and was mistaken for Marina? Or maybe
> one of those was staying there posing as Marina?

You can`t really go to the extraordinary until you`ve ruled out the
all the ordinary, which you will never be able to do so I don`t know
why you bother with this approach. the most obvious ordinary answer is
that the witness misjudged Marina`s fluency in English (an answer you
will cast derision on and dismiss without really being able to rule
out).

> Do you understand what I just did there.... it's what I have been
> doing all along... considering "non-suspicious/non-conspiratorial"
> explanations alongside other explanations outside the box.

And for my part I have been explaining why it`s silly to be even
looking here, you can`t possibly go anywhere with any of this. It
always reminds me of the joke where a guys says he lost a quarter up
the street, and a friend asks him why he is looking where he is, and
the guy replies "because the light is better here".

> One doesn't get to the facts by being one-eyed. It's why you haven't
> budged from the position held by the WC in 1964 - despite all the
> evidence it had at it's disposal. A one-eyed view of a one-eyed
> report.

Yah, I get it, you conspiracy hobbyists don`t like the WC. It`ll be
still standing when all you hobbyists are dust.

> Greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

[greg]

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...

>
>            The Oswalds' landlady on Elsbeth, Mrs. Tobias, testified
> that they moved to Neely Street, which was nearby.  (X, 241)
>
>            A letter from Marina to Ruth giving her new address has a
> map and Neely street on the envelope (bottom of page), postmarked
> March 8:
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...

That's interesting, Jean, in light of the fact that he never gave the
address to JCS.

When he started there in Oct, 1962, he gave his address as that of
Gary Taylor.

On Jan 11, he gave them the new address as 602 Elsbeth.

On Apr 1, he changed it at JCS again to PO Box 2915 (a box he'd taken
out the previous Oct)

So he goes to the trouble of keeping his employer updated on new
addresses - with one exception - when he moved to Neely St.

And this shows that that "t-8" informed of his address on the same
date the unemployment was filed for. Can you guess who "t-8" was?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=144039

>            The Oswalds' landlady on Elsbeth, Mrs. Tobias, testified
> that they moved to Neely Street, which was nearby.  (X, 241)

WC testimony of Mrs. TOBIAS. "They moved on this baby stroller."

as opposed to:

George B Bray (sic) statement: "The Oswald's were moved into this
{Neely St] apartment by a woman who was driving a white station
wagon."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=757055

The Grays lived downstairs and were the ones who complained that
Oswald was beating on Marina.

You also need to consider why Mr & Mrs Tobias were called to testify,
but Mr George (the Neely landlord) was not. Why he was not asked for
records etc. Why he had 3 attempts at getting the date Oswald moved in
"correct". Why the very lengthy (months) delay in interviewing him at
all.

Anyone would think that the Elsbeth address was the more significant,
given the different treatment each investigation received. Where was
it again that Oswald lived when he planned and launched his attack on
Walker? Where was he living when the BY photos were taken?

The answer is supposedly Neely St. You wouldn't know it from the lack
of interest in that apartment shown by investigators...

>            A letter from Marina to Ruth giving her new address has a
> map and Neely street on the envelope (bottom of page), postmarked
> March 8:
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

Yes, I was aware of it, but forgot. It may be the best evidence there
is - and that ain't saying much, since a letter can easily be written
any time (and not necessarily by the person whose name appears on
it)

>            There may be even more, if you keep digging.

I do have one correction to make: I also forgot that when I first
started posting about this at the Ed forum nearly a year ago, I did
provide a link showing that Barbara Daugherty at the Lone Star Gas
company advised that a Lee H Oswald requested the gas be turned on
with the service being connected on March 4 and a letter was sent
requesting a deposit - which was paid on March 8. Mrs D advised the
records did not reflect how Oswald contacted them. No bills were ever
paid, though they eventually exceeded the deposit.

Anyone could have rang and claimed to be Oswald.

I think the most likely explanations for the state of the evidence and
lack of obtaining better evidence and calling Neely St witnesses to
the WC is that Oswald merely parked Marina and June there - or someone
was living there pretending to be Marina.


>
> Jean

Greg
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

[Bud]

> date the unemployment was filed for. Can you guess who "t-8" was?http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

>
> >            The Oswalds' landlady on Elsbeth, Mrs. Tobias, testified
> > that they moved to Neely Street, which was nearby.  (X, 241)
>
> WC testimony of Mrs. TOBIAS. "They moved on this baby stroller."
>
> as opposed to:
>
> George B Bray (sic) statement: "The Oswald's were moved into this
> {Neely St] apartment by a woman who was driving a white station

> wagon."http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

This show a couple things. One, I was right that all this exercise
is is a desperate attempt to support one of Oswald`s lies, and two,
that when you claimed there was no paper trail it only meant that you
decided to disregard the paper trail because it went against what you
want so desperately to believe.

[Walt]

Thank you,.... You've just demonstrated that you don't KNOW the
important fundamental FACTS.

It is a FACT that Captain Fritz asked Lee Oswald about a backyard
photo during the interrogation session that took place at 12:35 pm on
Saturday 11 /23 /63. Captain Fritz described the BY photo in the
12:35 pm interrogation session, so It's obvious that he had seen a BY
photo at that time. (See page 607 of WR for verification)
However.... There was no BY photo in the hands of the authorities
until about three hours AFTER Fritz described a BY photo. according
to the official story ( lie) the BY photo was officially discovered
among Oswald's belongings, in the Paine garage, about 3:30pm Saturday
afternoon.

You are apparently ignorant about another important point to be
made.... You wrote: "They showed-- "the"-- photo of Oswald holding
the rifle to him " This demonstates that in your tiny uncritical
brain you can only think of the THREE photos as a single photo. It
is a FACT that the DPD had THREE (3) backyard photos in their hands at
the time, so we don't know which one of the three ( CE 133A, CE 133B
or the Roscoe White 133c) they showed Lee Oswald. It seems likely
that they showed him the Roscoe White BY photo 133c, but which ever
one it was Lee told them that it was a fake.

Since lee Oswald was very familiar with CE 133A and had made several
prints off that negative it's unlikely that he would have immediately
pronounced it to be a fake. However he had never seen 133c before and
knew immediately that it was a fake and told Fritz that it was a
fake. This immiate pronouncement by Oswald led the police to hide
that BY photo from the public, because they reasoned that If Lee
Oswald could see it was a fake so easily then they hadn't better let
the public see that photo.

>  http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...

[Jean]

Hi, Greg,

> > That's interesting, Jean, in light of the fact that he never gave the
> > address to JCS.
>
> > When he started there in Oct, 1962, he gave his address as that of
> > Gary Taylor.
>
> > On Jan 11, he gave them the new address as 602 Elsbeth.
>
> > On Apr 1, he changed it at JCS again to PO Box 2915 (a box he'd taken
> > out the previous Oct)
>
> > So he goes to the trouble of keeping his employer updated on new
> > addresses - with one exception - when he moved to Neely St.

He often used his post box address, even with his brother.
What's wrong with that?

>
> > And this shows that that "t-8" informed of his address on the same
> > date the unemployment was filed for. Can you guess who "t-8" was?http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

The one on May 6? I'm guessing a postal employee.

>
> > >            The Oswalds' landlady on Elsbeth, Mrs. Tobias, testified
> > > that they moved to Neely Street, which was nearby.  (X, 241)
>
> > WC testimony of Mrs. TOBIAS. "They moved on this baby stroller."
>
> > as opposed to:
>
> > George B Bray (sic) statement: "The Oswald's were moved into this
> > {Neely St] apartment by a woman who was driving a white station
> > wagon."http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

That's his memory of it eight months later. IMO, he's
confusing this with seeing Ruth pick up their belongings when Oswald
left for New Orleans, or possibly the FBI agent misunderstood him.

>
> > The Grays lived downstairs and were the ones who complained that
> > Oswald was beating on Marina.

Gray also recalled that Marina spoke no English and that
Oswald "appeared unfriendly and the BRAYS made no attempt to become
better acquainted." Sure sounds like the Oswalds to me.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=329335

>
> > You also need to consider why Mr & Mrs Tobias were called to testify,
> > but Mr George (the Neely landlord) was not. Why he was not asked for
> > records etc. Why he had 3 attempts at getting the date Oswald moved in
> > "correct". Why the very lengthy (months) delay in interviewing him at
> > all.

Unknown. You're letting suspicion fill in the blanks, not a
good idea, IMO.

>
> > Anyone would think that the Elsbeth address was the more significant,
> > given the different treatment each investigation received. Where was
> > it again that Oswald lived when he planned and launched his attack on
> > Walker? Where was he living when the BY photos were taken?
>
>
> > The answer is supposedly Neely St. You wouldn't know it from the lack
> > of interest in that apartment shown by investigators...

I don't know that there was a "lack of interest" in Neely
St.

>
> > >            A letter from Marina to Ruth giving her new address has a
> > > map and Neely street on the envelope (bottom of page), postmarked
> > > March 8:
>
> > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > Yes, I was aware of it, but forgot. It may be the best evidence there
> > is - and that ain't saying much, since a letter can easily be written
> > any time (and not necessarily by the person whose name appears on
> > it)

There's a postmark on the envelope as well as the
address.

>
> > >            There may be even more, if you keep digging.
>
> > I do have one correction to make: I also forgot that when I first
> > started posting about this at the Ed forum nearly a year ago, I did
> > provide a link showing that Barbara Daugherty at the Lone Star Gas
> > company advised that a Lee H Oswald requested the gas be turned on
> > with the service being connected on March 4 and a letter was sent
> > requesting a deposit - which was paid on March 8. Mrs D advised the
> > records did not reflect how Oswald contacted them. No bills were ever
> > paid, though they eventually exceeded the deposit.

Oswald sometimes skipped out on bills, but they moved before
their deposit was used up. Here's the gas co. letter and on the
right side, a letter saying that L.H. Oswald signed a contract to get
water and sewage:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0071b.htm

>
> > Anyone could have rang and claimed to be Oswald.

But we don't know that anyone did.

>
> > I think the most likely explanations for the state of the evidence and
> > lack of obtaining better evidence and calling Neely St witnesses to
> > the WC is that Oswald merely parked Marina and June there - or someone
> > was living there pretending to be Marina.

There's no actual evidence for that, is there?


Jean

[Jean]

Greg,

I accidentally posted my reply to you under a post
from Bud. Sorry about that, hope you'll answer it there.

Jean

> date the unemployment was filed for. Can you guess who "t-8" was?http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

>
> >            The Oswalds' landlady on Elsbeth, Mrs. Tobias, testified
> > that they moved to Neely Street, which was nearby.  (X, 241)
>
> WC testimony of Mrs. TOBIAS. "They moved on this baby stroller."
>
> as opposed to:
>
> George B Bray (sic) statement: "The Oswald's were moved into this
> {Neely St] apartment by a woman who was driving a white station

> wagon."http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

[greg]

On Jan 18, 2:38 am, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SNIP]

> Hi, Greg,
>
> > > That's interesting, Jean, in light of the fact that he never gave the
> > > address to JCS.
>
> > > When he started there in Oct, 1962, he gave his address as that of
> > > Gary Taylor.
>
> > > On Jan 11, he gave them the new address as 602 Elsbeth.
>
> > > On Apr 1, he changed it at JCS again to PO Box 2915 (a box he'd taken
> > > out the previous Oct)
>
> > > So he goes to the trouble of keeping his employer updated on new
> > > addresses - with one exception - when he moved to Neely St.
>
>          He often used his post box address, even with his brother.
> What's wrong with that?

Jean, he took the PO box out in Oct, 62. Meanwhile he kept his
employer appraised of actual street addresses (Taylor's address --->
Elsbeth), via his time sheets - until he allegedly moves to Neely St,
then after living there a month, he decides to give them his PO Box
address instead. What reason could he possibly have had when he moved
there, not advise his employer, as he had already done twice?

> > > And this shows that that "t-8" informed of his address on the same
> > > date the unemployment was filed for. Can you guess who "t-8" was?http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
>           The one on May 6?  I'm guessing a postal employee.

Sorry, for some reason, you've gone to the page after the one I linked
to and are referring to NO T-8.

I am referring to the 4/12 entry - information Oswald living on Neely
St supplied by T-8. That is the date Oswald allegedly lodged a claim
for unemployment. T-8 worked for TEC - the people who provided his
contacts into the White Russian community. Unfortunately we are not
told when T-8 provided this information...

But now we have Oswald too paranoid to provide his address to his
employer, but perfectly at ease in providing it to the TEC (as opposed
to hos box number)/

> > > >            The Oswalds' landlady on Elsbeth, Mrs. Tobias, testified
> > > > that they moved to Neely Street, which was nearby.  (X, 241)
>
> > > WC testimony of Mrs. TOBIAS. "They moved on this baby stroller."
>
> > > as opposed to:
>
> > > George B Bray (sic) statement: "The Oswald's were moved into this
> > > {Neely St] apartment by a woman who was driving a white station
> > > wagon."http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
>           That's his memory of it eight months later.  IMO, he's
> confusing this with seeing Ruth pick up their belongings when Oswald
> left for New Orleans, or possibly the FBI agent misunderstood him.

Toss him out for that reason and you have to toss Mrs T out as well.

> > > The Grays lived downstairs and were the ones who complained that
> > > Oswald was beating on Marina.
>
>              Gray also recalled that Marina spoke no English and that
> Oswald "appeared unfriendly and the BRAYS made no attempt to become
> better acquainted."  Sure sounds like the Oswalds to me.

Oswald obviously had a split personality. He was reported on the bus
to Mexico as super friendly. Ditto when he met the Kloepfer girls -
one of whom told me she thought he was hitting on her.

There was another person staying with the Grays, btw. It was she who
is now adamant that Marina's English was okay - an opinion she came by
via a number of chats with Marina about babies and other everyday
stuff.

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

>
>
>
> > > You also need to consider why Mr & Mrs Tobias were called to testify,
> > > but Mr George (the Neely landlord) was not. Why he was not asked for
> > > records etc. Why he had 3 attempts at getting the date Oswald moved in
> > > "correct". Why the very lengthy (months) delay in interviewing him at
> > > all.
>
>           Unknown.  You're letting suspicion fill in the blanks, not a
> good idea, IMO.

No. I'm asking legitimate questions. The case against Oswald was
partially built on certain allegations about his time at Neely St. His
time at Elspeth was of no consequence whatsoever. If it was a choice
between George and Tobias, why would you call the latter?

> > > Anyone would think that the Elsbeth address was the more significant,
> > > given the different treatment each investigation received. Where was
> > > it again that Oswald lived when he planned and launched his attack on
> > > Walker? Where was he living when the BY photos were taken?
>
> > > The answer is supposedly Neely St. You wouldn't know it from the lack
> > > of interest in that apartment shown by investigators...
>
>         I don't know that there was a "lack of interest" in Neely
> St.

Then please show me the copies of rent receipts found among Oswald's
possessions? Show me the receipt book the FBI alleged George had
showing Oswald rented there? Show me George's testimony. Show me the
Gray's testimony - surely their testimony was important considering
they claimed to be ear witnesses to Oswald's propensity for violence?

> > > >            A letter from Marina to Ruth giving her new address has a
> > > > map and Neely street on the envelope (bottom of page), postmarked
> > > > March 8:
>
> > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > > Yes, I was aware of it, but forgot. It may be the best evidence there
> > > is - and that ain't saying much, since a letter can easily be written
> > > any time (and not necessarily by the person whose name appears on
> > > it)
>
>              There's a postmark on the envelope as well as the
> address.

Yes - but's it's Ruth Paine's address.

> > > >            There may be even more, if you keep digging.
>
> > > I do have one correction to make: I also forgot that when I first
> > > started posting about this at the Ed forum nearly a year ago, I did
> > > provide a link showing that Barbara Daugherty at the Lone Star Gas
> > > company advised that a Lee H Oswald requested the gas be turned on
> > > with the service being connected on March 4 and a letter was sent
> > > requesting a deposit - which was paid on March 8. Mrs D advised the
> > > records did not reflect how Oswald contacted them. No bills were ever
> > > paid, though they eventually exceeded the deposit.
>
>           Oswald sometimes skipped out on bills, but they moved before
> their deposit was used up.   Here's the gas co. letter and on the
> right side, a letter saying that L.H. Oswald signed a contract to get
> water and sewage:

Where is the FBI report verifying it was Oswald's writing?

Water & Sewerage had him as LH OSwald.
Gas had him as Lee H Oswald
Electric Co had the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" scrawled in the margin of
the file and could only suggest the name came from another utility co
or a neighbor.

We can rule out another utility on the basis that neither had his
middle name - just an initial. I think it's a safe assumption that his
neighbors didn't know his full name either. But after the
assassination, the first person to mention Neely St to the police was
Michael Paine...

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...

> > > Anyone could have rang and claimed to be Oswald.
>
>            But we don't know that anyone did.

The point is, you can't prove he did - which in itself would not mean
much were it not for the fact that the evidence for him living there
is - to put it mildly - less than stellar.

> > > I think the most likely explanations for the state of the evidence and
> > > lack of obtaining better evidence and calling Neely St witnesses to
> > > the WC is that Oswald merely parked Marina and June there - or someone
> > > was living there pretending to be Marina.
>
>            There's no actual evidence for that, is there?

I could put together a circumstantial case from the records no less
convincing than the official version - including naming the likely
candidate as the imposter - if certain information can be checked. If
that information does not fit, I will accept that Marina and June
stayed there for a short while - with Oswald perhaps paying sporadic
visits.

But my original point remains: there were no BY photos taken of Oswald
there.

greg
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

[Jean]

On Jan 18, 6:30 am, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2:38 am, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi, Greg,
>
> > > > That's interesting, Jean, in light of the fact that he never gave the
> > > > address to JCS.
>
> > > > When he started there in Oct, 1962, he gave his address as that of
> > > > Gary Taylor.
>
> > > > On Jan 11, he gave them the new address as 602 Elsbeth.
>
> > > > On Apr 1, he changed it at JCS again to PO Box 2915 (a box he'd taken
> > > > out the previous Oct)
>
> > > > So he goes to the trouble of keeping his employer updated on new
> > > > addresses - with one exception - when he moved to Neely St.
>
> >          He often used his post box address, even with his brother.
> > What's wrong with that?
>
> Jean, he took the PO box out in Oct, 62. Meanwhile he kept his
> employer appraised of actual street addresses (Taylor's address --->
> Elsbeth), via his time sheets - until he allegedly moves to Neely St,
> then after living there a month, he decides to give them his PO Box
> address instead. What reason could he possibly have had when he moved
> there, not advise his employer, as he had already done twice?

He told his brother he was using a P.O. box because he
moved often, which he did. Bottom line, nobody can read Oswald's
dead mind, so most questions beginning "Why did Oswald....?" are
forever unanswerable.

>
> > > > And this shows that that "t-8" informed of his address on the same
> > > > date the unemployment was filed for. Can you guess who "t-8" was?http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> >           The one on May 6?  I'm guessing a postal employee.
>
> Sorry, for some reason, you've gone to the page after the one I linked
> to and are referring to NO T-8.
>
> I am referring to the 4/12 entry - information Oswald living on Neely
> St supplied by T-8. That is the date Oswald allegedly lodged a claim
> for unemployment. T-8 worked for TEC - the people who provided his
> contacts into the White Russian community. Unfortunately we are not
> told when T-8 provided this information...

I agree the information came from the Texas Employment
Commission. He filed an unemployment claim on that day, 4/12.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0105b.htm

April 12 was two days after he shot at Walker. Maybe he
didn't mind giving that address if he was already planning to leave
town. But who knows?

>
> But now we have Oswald too paranoid to provide his address to his
> employer, but perfectly at ease in providing it to the TEC (as opposed
> to hos box number)/

So what's your explanation, Greg?

>
> > > > >            The Oswalds' landlady on Elsbeth, Mrs. Tobias, testified
> > > > > that they moved to Neely Street, which was nearby.  (X, 241)
>
> > > > WC testimony of Mrs. TOBIAS. "They moved on this baby stroller."
>
> > > > as opposed to:
>
> > > > George B Bray (sic) statement: "The Oswald's were moved into this
> > > > {Neely St] apartment by a woman who was driving a white station
> > > > wagon."http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> >           That's his memory of it eight months later.  IMO, he's
> > confusing this with seeing Ruth pick up their belongings when Oswald
> > left for New Orleans, or possibly the FBI agent misunderstood him.
>
> Toss him out for that reason and you have to toss Mrs T out as well.

No, because unlike Gray's, Mrs. T's testimony is well
supported, not only by Marina and Ruth but by Marina's letter
postmarked March 8 in which she informs Ruth that she has moved to
Neely Street and tells her how to get there. Odd, if Ruth had
already moved her there earlier that month.

>
> > > > The Grays lived downstairs and were the ones who complained that
> > > > Oswald was beating on Marina.

I thought something was said about their "fighting," not
"beating". Do you doubt that Oswald hit Marina? There is a lot of
testimony on that from Marguerite, et al.

>
> >              Gray also recalled that Marina spoke no English and that
> > Oswald "appeared unfriendly and the BRAYS made no attempt to become
> > better acquainted."  Sure sounds like the Oswalds to me.
>
> Oswald obviously had a split personality. He was reported on the bus
> to Mexico as super friendly. Ditto when he met the Kloepfer girls -
> one of whom told me she thought he was hitting on her.

Friendly to two girls on the bus, the Kloepfers, and a
Japanese woman at a party, as I recall. Normal for a young male.
Usually he was not friendly with neighbors or coworkers, though. He
kept to himself.

>
> There was another person staying with the Grays, btw. It was she who
> is now adamant that Marina's English was okay - an opinion she came by
> via a number of chats with Marina about babies and other everyday
> stuff.
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

Broken link.

>
> > > > You also need to consider why Mr & Mrs Tobias were called to testify,
> > > > but Mr George (the Neely landlord) was not. Why he was not asked for
> > > > records etc. Why he had 3 attempts at getting the date Oswald moved in
> > > > "correct". Why the very lengthy (months) delay in interviewing him at
> > > > all.
>
> >           Unknown.  You're letting suspicion fill in the blanks, not a
> > good idea, IMO.
>
> No. I'm asking legitimate questions. The case against Oswald was
> partially built on certain allegations about his time at Neely St. His
> time at Elspeth was of no consequence whatsoever. If it was a choice
> between George and Tobias, why would you call the latter?

Again an unanswerable "why" question.

>
> > > > Anyone would think that the Elsbeth address was the more significant,
> > > > given the different treatment each investigation received. Where was
> > > > it again that Oswald lived when he planned and launched his attack on
> > > > Walker? Where was he living when the BY photos were taken?
>
> > > > The answer is supposedly Neely St. You wouldn't know it from the lack
> > > > of interest in that apartment shown by investigators...
>
> >         I don't know that there was a "lack of interest" in Neely
> > St.
>
> Then please show me the copies of rent receipts found among Oswald's
> possessions? Show me the receipt book the FBI alleged George had
> showing Oswald rented there? Show me George's testimony. Show me the
> Gray's testimony - surely their testimony was important considering
> they claimed to be ear witnesses to Oswald's propensity for violence?

You know very well that those things don't exist, and if
these people had testified, would you believe them? Mrs. Tobias
testified that the Oswalds moved to Neely using a stroller. Elena
Hall and her husband and Gary Taylor testified that they visited the
Neely St. apartment. Do you believe them?

The WC called hundreds of witnesses. Most of the
thousands of potential witnesses didn't get called.

>
> > > > >            A letter from Marina to Ruth giving her new address has a
> > > > > map and Neely street on the envelope (bottom of page), postmarked
> > > > > March 8:
>
> > > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > > > Yes, I was aware of it, but forgot. It may be the best evidence there
> > > > is - and that ain't saying much, since a letter can easily be written
> > > > any time (and not necessarily by the person whose name appears on
> > > > it)
>
> >              There's a postmark on the envelope as well as the
> > address.
>
> Yes - but's it's Ruth Paine's address.

The *return* address for Marina is on Neely Street. Look
again.

>
> > > > >            There may be even more, if you keep digging.
>
> > > > I do have one correction to make: I also forgot that when I first
> > > > started posting about this at the Ed forum nearly a year ago, I did
> > > > provide a link showing that Barbara Daugherty at the Lone Star Gas
> > > > company advised that a Lee H Oswald requested the gas be turned on
> > > > with the service being connected on March 4 and a letter was sent
> > > > requesting a deposit - which was paid on March 8. Mrs D advised the
> > > > records did not reflect how Oswald contacted them. No bills were ever
> > > > paid, though they eventually exceeded the deposit.
>
> >           Oswald sometimes skipped out on bills, but they moved before
> > their deposit was used up.   Here's the gas co. letter and on the
> > right side, a letter saying that L.H. Oswald signed a contract to get
> > water and sewage:
>
> Where is the FBI report verifying it was Oswald's writing?

Would that really settle it for you, Greg? Somehow I doubt
it.

>
> Water & Sewerage had him as LH OSwald.
> Gas had him as Lee H Oswald
> Electric Co had the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" scrawled in the margin of
> the file and could only suggest the name came from another utility co
> or a neighbor.

Or from LHO himself, maybe?

>
> We can rule out another utility on the basis that neither had his
> middle name - just an initial. I think it's a safe assumption that his
> neighbors didn't know his full name either. But after the
> assassination, the first person to mention Neely St to the police was
> Michael Paine...

Ah, another suspect!

>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
> > > > Anyone could have rang and claimed to be Oswald.
>
> >            But we don't know that anyone did.
>
> The point is, you can't prove he did - which in itself would not mean
> much were it not for the fact that the evidence for him living there
> is - to put it mildly - less than stellar.

The evidence for him living *anywhere else* is much less
than stellar -- it's nonexistent, so far as I can tell.

On the other hand, there are documents with that address and
testimony from at least eight people putting him on Neely St --and
probably more, if we looked hard enough.

>
> > > > I think the most likely explanations for the state of the evidence and
> > > > lack of obtaining better evidence and calling Neely St witnesses to
> > > > the WC is that Oswald merely parked Marina and June there - or someone
> > > > was living there pretending to be Marina.
>
> >            There's no actual evidence for that, is there?
>
> I could put together a circumstantial case from the records no less
> convincing than the official version - including naming the likely
> candidate as the imposter - if certain information can be checked.

An Oswald imposter? Why?

> If
> that information does not fit, I will accept that Marina and June
> stayed there for a short while - with Oswald perhaps paying sporadic
> visits.

And what evidence is there that he wasn't there all the
time?

Jean
<snip>

[Jean]

On Jan 19, 5:17 am, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:

> Jean, questions do not die with people -- otherwise history would be a
> big blank sheet.

Greg, questions don't die with people, but answers to
questions like this one might.

>
> You want your cake and eat it, too. You want to call changing his
> "usual habit" when he got a lift to the Paine's on Thursday instead of
> Friday "suspicious" and indicative of a plan to get his rifle to take
> to work the next day.... even though he had only been making those
> trips for 6 weeks - hardly long enough to have established a regular
> routine.

The difference is that Oswald's visit coincided with a bunch
of other evidence indicating that he went to Irving to get his
rifle. Without that, the Thursday visit wouldn't be suspicious.

>
> Now you want to say he had a habit of giving out his PO Box # instead
> of street address because he was constantly moving.

That's the reason Oswald gave his brother for getting a P.O.
box. That may've been part of it, as well as wanting to stay off the
FBI's radar.

>Yet when he breaks
> that routine firstly by giving his employer his street addresses --
> until he allegedly moves to Neely and doesn't change his address from
> Elsbeth for a whole month - then gives them the PO address - thus
> never advising them of Neely at any time,
> and then breaks it a second
> time by giving the TEC his Neely street address instead of his PO box
> you simply say "move along, nothing to see here..."

No, I'm wondering why you find this suspicious. You speak of
breaking a routine. What routine? If Oswald wasn't having his
paycheck mailed to him, he didn't need to update his address at JCS.
And maybe the TEC required his street address. Or maybe there was
some other reason neither of us can think of.

>
> > > > > > And this shows that that "t-8" informed of his address on the same
> > > > > > date the unemployment was filed for. Can you guess who "t-8" was?http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> > > > The one on May 6? I'm guessing a postal employee.
>
> > > Sorry, for some reason, you've gone to the page after the one I linked
> > > to and are referring to NO T-8.
>
> > > I am referring to the 4/12 entry - information Oswald living on Neely
> > > St supplied by T-8. That is the date Oswald allegedly lodged a claim
> > > for unemployment. T-8 worked for TEC - the people who provided his
> > > contacts into the White Russian community. Unfortunately we are not
> > > told when T-8 provided this information...
>
> > I agree the information came from the Texas Employment
> > Commission. He filed an unemployment claim on that day, 4/12.
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...

>
> > April 12 was two days after he shot at Walker. Maybe he
> > didn't mind giving that address if he was already planning to leave
> > town. But who knows?
>

> Maybe you're right. But maybe he never gave them that address at all.
> I mean, how exactly does this work. "informant T-8" decides to check
> Oswald's records and sees he lived at Neely ST back in March/April and
> calls the FBI.... even though he would have had more a current address
> on record? As well as many preceding Neely? I know you hate questions,
> but why has Neely St been plucked from the records? Or was this
> information passed on to the FBI back in March/April, as part of
> keeping tabs on him?

I don't hate questions.

I found this in Hosty's testimony:

QUOTE:

Mr. HOSTY. This case was closed at this time. It was closed.
On March 11, 1963, I made inquiry at this Elsbeth address, and
determined from the landlady, I believe her name was Mrs. Tobias, that
she had just evicted Lee and Marina Oswald from her apartment building
because of their alleged fighting and his alleged drinking. They
caused a disturbance and she had asked him to leave on March 3, 1963.
She told me they had moved a short distance away. She didn't know
where. On that same date, I was able to determine from the postal
authorities that they had changed their address to 214 Neely Street,
also in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas.
On the 14th of March, I verified that Oswalds were residing at this
address when I found the mailbox with the name of Lee and Marina
Oswald at this address, 214 Neely Street.

UNQUOTE

Also, this record saying pretty much the same thing:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=117797&relPageId=136

>
> > > But now we have Oswald too paranoid to provide his address to his
> > > employer, but perfectly at ease in providing it to the TEC (as opposed
> > > to hos box number)/
>
> > So what's your explanation, Greg?
>

> I don't have one that fully satisfies me, let alone you. It is not
> just this; it is a whole raft of peculiarities combined concerning
> Neely St. I know you want to treat them separately, but it's a package
> deal...

I'm just responding to what you write, Greg. Peculiarities
don't necessarily mean anything.

>
> > > > > > > The Oswalds' landlady on Elsbeth, Mrs. Tobias, testified
> > > > > > > that they moved to Neely Street, which was nearby. (X, 241)
>
> > > > > > WC testimony of Mrs. TOBIAS. "They moved on this baby stroller."
>
> > > > > > as opposed to:
>
> > > > > > George B Bray (sic) statement: "The Oswald's were moved into this
> > > > > > {Neely St] apartment by a woman who was driving a white station
> > > > > > wagon."http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> > > > That's his memory of it eight months later. IMO, he's
> > > > confusing this with seeing Ruth pick up their belongings when Oswald
> > > > left for New Orleans, or possibly the FBI agent misunderstood him.
>
> > > Toss him out for that reason and you have to toss Mrs T out as well.
>
> > No, because unlike Gray's, Mrs. T's testimony is well
> > supported, not only by Marina and Ruth but by Marina's letter
> > postmarked March 8 in which she informs Ruth that she has moved to
> > Neely Street
>

> No. She wrote a letter stating she had moved. The Neely address
> appears on a separate sheet of paper, and as you point out elsewhere,
> on the envelope. You draw an inference by connecting those things.

I don't think the map is a separate sheet of paper but rather
the left side of a folded page, with the flowery page on the outside
of the other two. It's all one piece of stationery, imo. Look at
the horizontal lines top and bottom indicating that the map and last
page are a single sheet.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0054a.htm

Do you think the postmark is faked?

>
> Who supports Mrs Tobias in regard to them moving their belongings in a
> stroller?

The stroller part, nobody I'm aware of. Do you think
somebody told her to make that up?

>
> And are you now suggesting that the Gray's were mistaken about Lee
> beating on Marina?

No, I just didn't recall that wording. I believe that he
hit her at least once, because several witnesses reported a black
eye. Do you disagree?

>
> and tells her how to get there. Odd, if Ruth had
>
> > already moved her there earlier that month.
>

> But not odd if it was a different person, moving someone else in
> there.

You lost me there. How many people had to lie for this to
be true? What was the purpose of all this chicanery?

>
> > > > > > The Grays lived downstairs and were the ones who complained that
> > > > > > Oswald was beating on Marina.
>
> > I thought something was said about their "fighting," not
> > "beating". Do you doubt that Oswald hit Marina? There is a lot of
> > testimony on that from Marguerite, et al.
>

> The Gray's used the less definitive term with the FBI. However Mr
> George was adamant that the Grays told him Oswald was beating her.

>
> > > > Gray also recalled that Marina spoke no English and that
> > > > Oswald "appeared unfriendly and the BRAYS made no attempt to become
> > > > better acquainted." Sure sounds like the Oswalds to me.
>
> > > Oswald obviously had a split personality. He was reported on the bus
> > > to Mexico as super friendly. Ditto when he met the Kloepfer girls -
> > > one of whom told me she thought he was hitting on her.
>
> > Friendly to two girls on the bus, the Kloepfers, and a
> > Japanese woman at a party, as I recall. Normal for a young male.
> > Usually he was not friendly with neighbors or coworkers, though. He
> > kept to himself.
>

> So Oswald was a "normal" young guy?

Normal behavior for a young male. Or an old male, for that
matter.

>
> > > There was another person staying with the Grays, btw. It was she who
> > > is now adamant that Marina's English was okay - an opinion she came by
> > > via a number of chats with Marina about babies and other everyday
> > > stuff.
>
> > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> > Broken link.
>

> Not in the original post it was in.

>
> > > > > > You also need to consider why Mr & Mrs Tobias were called to testify,
> > > > > > but Mr George (the Neely landlord) was not. Why he was not asked for
> > > > > > records etc. Why he had 3 attempts at getting the date Oswald moved in
> > > > > > "correct". Why the very lengthy (months) delay in interviewing him at
> > > > > > all.
>
> > > > Unknown. You're letting suspicion fill in the blanks, not a
> > > > good idea, IMO.
>
> > > No. I'm asking legitimate questions. The case against Oswald was
> > > partially built on certain allegations about his time at Neely St. His
> > > time at Elspeth was of no consequence whatsoever. If it was a choice
> > > between George and Tobias, why would you call the latter?
>
> > Again an unanswerable "why" question.
>

> Not unanswerable at all. I think the reason is perfectly obvious.

I say it's unknown. Maybe George had health problems or
couldn't testify for some other reason. Very likely, imo, it never
occurred to the WC that anyone would doubt that the Oswalds lived on
Neely Street. They had ample evidence that they lived there.

>
> > > > > > Anyone would think that the Elsbeth address was the more significant,
> > > > > > given the different treatment each investigation received. Where was
> > > > > > it again that Oswald lived when he planned and launched his attack on
> > > > > > Walker? Where was he living when the BY photos were taken?
>
> > > > > > The answer is supposedly Neely St. You wouldn't know it from the lack
> > > > > > of interest in that apartment shown by investigators...
>
> > > > I don't know that there was a "lack of interest" in Neely
> > > > St.
>
> > > Then please show me the copies of rent receipts found among Oswald's
> > > possessions? Show me the receipt book the FBI alleged George had
> > > showing Oswald rented there? Show me George's testimony. Show me the
> > > Gray's testimony - surely their testimony was important considering
> > > they claimed to be ear witnesses to Oswald's propensity for violence?
>
> > You know very well that those things don't exist, and if
> > these people had testified, would you believe them?
>

> What I do/don't or might believe is not relevant to the question of
> who was and wasn't called, Jean. You know that.

No, but it's relevant to the questions you're asking. Why
would Oswald have saved rent receipts from Neely after moving to N.O.
and back? Show me *any* rent receipts he kept.

>
> Mrs. Tobias
>
> > testified that the Oswalds moved to Neely using a stroller. Elena
> > Hall and her husband and Gary Taylor testified that they visited the
> > Neely St. apartment. Do you believe them?
>

> Yes. But I don't necessarily believe they were visiting the Oswald's.

Then you *don't* believe them, because that's not what they
said.

>
> > The WC called hundreds of witnesses. Most of the
> > thousands of potential witnesses didn't get called.
>
> > > > > > > A letter from Marina to Ruth giving her new address has a
> > > > > > > map and Neely street on the envelope (bottom of page), postmarked
> > > > > > > March 8:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > > > > > Yes, I was aware of it, but forgot. It may be the best evidence there
> > > > > > is - and that ain't saying much, since a letter can easily be written
> > > > > > any time (and not necessarily by the person whose name appears on
> > > > > > it)
>
> > > > There's a postmark on the envelope as well as the
> > > > address.
>
> > > Yes - but's it's Ruth Paine's address.
>
> > The *return* address for Marina is on Neely Street. Look
> > again.
>

> Thank you. Like I said, if I had to pick the most persuasive piece of
> evidence, the letter would be it. But it is far from unimpeachable.

>
> > > > > > > There may be even more, if you keep digging.
>
> > > > > > I do have one correction to make: I also forgot that when I first
> > > > > > started posting about this at the Ed forum nearly a year ago, I did
> > > > > > provide a link showing that Barbara Daugherty at the Lone Star Gas
> > > > > > company advised that a Lee H Oswald requested the gas be turned on
> > > > > > with the service being connected on March 4 and a letter was sent
> > > > > > requesting a deposit - which was paid on March 8. Mrs D advised the
> > > > > > records did not reflect how Oswald contacted them. No bills were ever
> > > > > > paid, though they eventually exceeded the deposit.
>
> > > > Oswald sometimes skipped out on bills, but they moved before
> > > > their deposit was used up. Here's the gas co. letter and on the
> > > > right side, a letter saying that L.H. Oswald signed a contract to get
> > > > water and sewage:
>
> > > Where is the FBI report verifying it was Oswald's writing?
>
> > Would that really settle it for you, Greg? Somehow I doubt
> > it.
>

> How is that relevant to whether or not the FBI should have verified
> the signature? Did Hoover, using his well known crystal balls,
> foretell that in nearly 50 years, some wise guy half way around the
> world would be cynical of any results, so why bother doing it? These
> type of "you wouldn't believe it anyway..." responses are not
> legitimate answers, but an attempt to divert attention. I won't allow
> you to do that, Jean.

Very well, you think the FBI should've verified his
signature. Did they verify every other Oswald signature in existence?

>
> > > Water & Sewerage had him as LH OSwald.
> > > Gas had him as Lee H Oswald
> > > Electric Co had the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" scrawled in the margin of
> > > the file and could only suggest the name came from another utility co
> > > or a neighbor.
>
> > Or from LHO himself, maybe?
>

> Huh? The occupant rings/comes in, but only gives his name, and no
> other details are taken, and then his name is not even properly
> recorded in accordance with established procedures, but merely
> scrawled in the margin? No, Jean. I don't think so. Scrawling a name
> in the margin is indicative of a tipoff, written in the margin until
> it can be verified.

That's pure speculation, Greg.

> Who gave the tip? I go with the Paines. Makes far
> more sense, given the known facts, than it having been Oswald.

Please cite the evidence for the Paines providing Oswald's
name.

>
> > > We can rule out another utility on the basis that neither had his
> > > middle name - just an initial. I think it's a safe assumption that his
> > > neighbors didn't know his full name either. But after the
> > > assassination, the first person to mention Neely St to the police was
> > > Michael Paine...
>
> > Ah, another suspect!
>

> No. Not another. The Paines have long been on my suspects list.

Oh, I know. Long list, I expect.

>
> > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
> > > > > > Anyone could have rang and claimed to be Oswald.
>
> > > > But we don't know that anyone did.
>
> > > The point is, you can't prove he did - which in itself would not mean
> > > much were it not for the fact that the evidence for him living there
> > > is - to put it mildly - less than stellar.
>
> > The evidence for him living *anywhere else* is much less
> > than stellar -- it's nonexistent, so far as I can tell.
>

> That's hat "safe houses" are all about. Hiding.

What makes you think this was a "safe house"?

>
> > On the other hand, there are documents
>

> Receipt book from owner. Never copied by FBI.
> Letter from Marina saying he has moved, but doesn't give any new
> address. The Neely address is on a separate sheet and on an envelope.
> Oswald name scrawled in margin of electric co. Not known how it was
> obtained.

I agree: "Not known."

> Oswald name with gas company, They did not know how they got it.

Another unknown.

> Signed water and sewerage contract. Contract bot copied - sig not
> verified.
> Neely address allegedly given to TEC by Oswald - person he gave it to
> happens to be an FBI informant.

You don't like this evidence, I see. Now please list the
evidence that the Oswalds didn't live on Neely.
>
> Anything else I've missed?

The Hosty record above, maybe.

>
> with that address and
>
> > testimony from at least eight people putting him on Neely St --and
> > probably more, if we looked hard enough.
>

> Ya. And it is a very specific group of people placing him there. Not
> exactly abroad cross-section of the community...

Gary Taylor, the Halls, Marina, the Paines, the De
Mohrenschildts, Mrs. Tobias, even Hosty might be counted.

How many people or documents say that the Oswalds were
living somewhere *else* during this period?

>
> > > > > > I think the most likely explanations for the state of the evidence and
> > > > > > lack of obtaining better evidence and calling Neely St witnesses to
> > > > > > the WC is that Oswald merely parked Marina and June there - or someone
> > > > > > was living there pretending to be Marina.
>
> > > > There's no actual evidence for that, is there?
>
> > > I could put together a circumstantial case from the records no less
> > > convincing than the official version - including naming the likely
> > > candidate as the imposter - if certain information can be checked.
>
> > An Oswald imposter? Why?
>

> Nope Marina imposter, or someone visiting Marina and being mistaken
> for her.

Why would anyone impersonate Marina?

>
> I am not writing off Marina having lived there yet. All I'm saying is
> that the case could be made FROM THE EXISTING RECORDS that a specific
> person was living there and passing herself off as Marina (or
> alternatively, who post assassination, it was convenient to say this
> person was Marina).

Extraordinary claims require at least some good evidence,
I'd say.

>
> > > If
> > > that information does not fit, I will accept that Marina and June
> > > stayed there for a short while - with Oswald perhaps paying sporadic
> > > visits.
>
> > And what evidence is there that he wasn't there all the
> > time?
>

> No one in the immediate area recalled him as living there - except the
> Grays. Odd if he was living there unemployed. In NO, he spent a huge
> amount of time on the porch or in the yard, getting around in bathers.
> Every single neighbor he had there remembered him and his many
> peccadilloes. Quite a contrast to Neely St.

That's not evidence he didn't live there, Greg. We don't
know all the circumstances, but off the top of my head ... Dallas in
March and early April is not N.O. in the summer with no air
conditioning. Oswald was working all of March.

Jean

>
> Greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum> Jean
> > <snip>

[greg]

On Jan 20, 7:02 pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > >          He often used his post box address, even with his brother.
> > > > > What's wrong with that?
>
> > > > Jean, he took the PO box out in Oct, 62. Meanwhile he kept his
> > > > employer appraised of actual street addresses (Taylor's address --->
> > > > Elsbeth), via his time sheets - until he allegedly moves to Neely St,
> > > > then after living there a month, he decides to give them his PO Box
> > > > address instead. What reason could he possibly have had when he moved
> > > > there, not advise his employer, as he had already done twice?
>
> > >            He told his brother he was using a P.O. box because he
> > > moved often, which he did.    Bottom line, nobody can read Oswald's
> > > dead mind, so most questions beginning "Why did Oswald....?"  are
> > > forever unanswerable.
>
> > Jean, questions do not die with people -- otherwise history would be a
> > big blank sheet.
>
>         Greg, questions don't die with people, but answers to
> questions like this one might.

There is an answer, Jean. Look at the time spent on trying to divine a
motive. Were those learned gentlemen deliberately wasting their time
on something that couldn't be answered because the only person who
knew for sure, was dead? They sought an answer that satisfied (in
their minds) the data they had. In short, it can be answered to the
satisfaction of some at least, based on the totality of the evidence.

Whilst you busy yourself trying to isolate all of these oddities
because that lessons their impact, you are among those who want the
evidence AGAINST Oswald looked at as a total package because it
increases the impact.

The oddities cannot be isolated, Jean. I will keep reminded you that
they are numerous regarding Neely St and need considering all
together.

> > You want your cake and eat it, too. You want to call changing his
> > "usual habit" when he got a lift to the Paine's on Thursday instead of
> > Friday "suspicious" and  indicative of a plan to get his rifle to take
> > to work the next day....  even though he had only been making those
> > trips for 6 weeks - hardly long enough to have established a regular
> > routine.
>
>         The difference is that Oswald's visit coincided with a bunch
> of other evidence indicating that he went to Irving to get his
> rifle.   Without that, the Thursday visit wouldn't be suspicious.

Ah ha. And who saw him with a rifle?

Your words: "He told his brother he was using a P.O. box because he

moved often, which he did."

He took that PO Box out in Oct '62 and didn't tell anyone about it
apart from his brother, until he wrote it on work time sheet in April,
1963 - a month after allegedly moving to Neely St.

It is not consistent with what he told his brother - nor is it
consistent with his prior behavior of immediately notifying JCS of his
STREET addresses.

It is one of many red flags concerning Neely St.

> > Now you want to say he had a habit of giving out his PO Box # instead
> > of street address because he was constantly moving.
>
>          That's the reason Oswald gave his brother for getting a P.O.
> box.  That may've been part of it, as well as wanting to stay off the
> FBI's radar.

And his street address couldn't be obtained from the boys at the PO?
You're scrabbling for excuses.

> >Yet when he breaks
> > that routine firstly by giving his employer his street addresses --
> > until he allegedly moves to Neely and doesn't change his address from
> > Elsbeth for a whole month - then gives them the PO  address - thus
> > never advising them of Neely at any time,
> > and then breaks it a second
> > time by giving the TEC his Neely street address instead of his PO box
> > you simply say "move along, nothing to see here..."
>
>         No, I'm wondering why you find this suspicious.

For the same reason you would if it was evidence of his Lone Nutism.

You speak of
> breaking a routine.  What routine?   If Oswald wasn't having his
> paycheck mailed to him, he didn't need to update his address at JCS.

And yet, until Neely St, he did just that...

> And maybe the TEC required his street address.  Or maybe there was
> some other reason neither of us can think of.

He just keeps running into FBI informants where ever he wanders...

Mrs T testified that she did find out the address - From divining
Marina's thoughts. But she can't seem to keep her story straight. It
is "common knowledge" that she booted them out for constantly
fighting. Yet, she has Marina walking past with her stroller on
occasion and her and hubby rushing out to greet her. On (probably) the
first such occasion, she testified that she said to Marina, "You moved
away and left us." That is hardly the way you greet someone you've
just evicted. She then asks Marina where they moved to, and Marina
allegedly answered "214" by "writing" it on a car. Mrs T then
testified "and then I knew it was Neely".

Amazing.

>            Also, this record saying pretty much the same thing:
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=117...

What an absolute crock!

A Dallas Electric & Light meter reader, part of whose job it was to
determine occupancy so that he/she could be billed, twice reported the
apartment vacant. The first time on Feb 19 and the second on March 20.
How could he twice miss seeing a name plate on the letter box? And
where and when was this name plate obtained and what happened to it?
The reader did not note any occupancy until his next visit on April
19. This document adds another layer of mystery too, in that it states
that there was a date associated with Oswald's name noted in the
margin of the file.... Mar 29...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=997392

> > > > But now we have Oswald too paranoid to provide his address to his
> > > > employer, but perfectly at ease in providing it to the TEC (as opposed
> > > > to hos box number)/
>
> > >              So what's your explanation, Greg?
>
> > I don't have one that fully satisfies me, let alone you. It is not
> > just this; it is a whole raft of peculiarities combined concerning
> > Neely St. I know you want to treat them separately, but it's a package
> > deal...
>
>           I'm just responding to what you write, Greg.  Peculiarities
> don't necessarily mean anything.

But when one is piled on top of another on top of another and so on, a
titting point is reached -- and you will continue to try and isolate
each item so that, on its own, it can be legitimately said it "doesn't
necessarily mean anything". Not happening, Jean.

> > > > > > > >            The Oswalds' landlady on Elsbeth, Mrs. Tobias, testified
> > > > > > > > that they moved to Neely Street, which was nearby.  (X, 241)
>
> > > > > > > WC testimony of Mrs. TOBIAS. "They moved on this baby stroller."
>
> > > > > > > as opposed to:
>
> > > > > > > George B Bray (sic) statement: "The Oswald's were moved into this
> > > > > > > {Neely St] apartment by a woman who was driving a white station
> > > > > > > wagon."http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> > > > >           That's his memory of it eight months later.  IMO, he's
> > > > > confusing this with seeing Ruth pick up their belongings when Oswald
> > > > > left for New Orleans, or possibly the FBI agent misunderstood him.
>
> > > > Toss him out for that reason and you have to toss Mrs T out as well.
>
> > >            No, because unlike Gray's, Mrs. T's testimony is well
> > > supported, not only by Marina and Ruth but by Marina's letter
> > > postmarked March 8 in which she informs Ruth that she has moved to
> > > Neely Street
>
> > No. She wrote a letter stating she had moved. The Neely address
> > appears on a separate sheet of paper, and as you point out elsewhere,
> > on the envelope. You draw an inference by connecting those things.
>
>          I don't think the map is a separate sheet of paper but rather
> the left side of a folded page, with the flowery page on the outside
> of the other two.  It's all one piece of stationery, imo.   Look at
> the horizontal lines top and bottom indicating that the map and last
> page are a single sheet.
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
>           Do you think the postmark is faked?

Do you think it's never been done?

> > Who supports Mrs Tobias in regard to them moving their belongings in a
> > stroller?
>
>           The stroller part, nobody I'm aware of.  Do you think
> somebody told her to make that up?

No. I think she was probably confused and getting mixed up with seeing
Marina pushing Junie around in the stroller.

You know, the same as the Grays got confused by mixing up the Oswald's
leaving Neely St by car with arriving by car.

> > And are you now suggesting that the Gray's were mistaken about Lee
> > beating on Marina?
>
>             No, I just didn't recall that wording.  I believe that he
> hit her at least once, because several witnesses reported a black
> eye.   Do you disagree?

I simply do not know whether he did or not; nor do I find it
particularly relevant.

> >  and tells her how to get there.    Odd, if Ruth had
>
> > > already moved her there earlier that month.
>
> > But not odd if it was a different person, moving someone else in
> > there.
>
>            You lost me there.  How many people had to lie for this to
> be true?  What was the purpose of all this chicanery?

Not saying it happened. I'm saying I could make just as good a case
for it as the case for it being the Oswalds - using the same source-
the 26 volumes.

> > > > > > > The Grays lived downstairs and were the ones who complained that
> > > > > > > Oswald was beating on Marina.
>
> > >             I thought something was said about their "fighting," not
> > > "beating".   Do you doubt that Oswald hit Marina?   There is  a lot of
> > > testimony on that from Marguerite, et al.
>
> > The Gray's used the less definitive term with the FBI. However Mr
> > George was adamant that the Grays told him Oswald was beating her.
>
> > > > >              Gray also recalled that Marina spoke no English and that
> > > > > Oswald "appeared unfriendly and the BRAYS made no attempt to become
> > > > > better acquainted."  Sure sounds like the Oswalds to me.
>
> > > > Oswald obviously had a split personality. He was reported on the bus
> > > > to Mexico as super friendly. Ditto when he met the Kloepfer girls -
> > > > one of whom told me she thought he was hitting on her.
>
> > >             Friendly to two girls on the bus, the Kloepfers,  and a
> > > Japanese woman at a party, as I recall.   Normal for a young male.
> > > Usually he was not friendly with neighbors or coworkers, though.   He
> > > kept to himself.
>
> > So Oswald was a "normal" young guy?
>
>            Normal behavior for a young male.  Or an old male, for that
> matter.

He was "normal" "yes" or "no"?

> > > > There was another person staying with the Grays, btw. It was she who
> > > > is now adamant that Marina's English was okay - an opinion she came by
> > > > via a number of chats with Marina about babies and other everyday
> > > > stuff.
>
> > > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> > >              Broken link.
>
> > Not in the original post it was in.
>
> > > > > > > You also need to consider why Mr & Mrs Tobias were called to testify,
> > > > > > > but Mr George (the Neely landlord) was not. Why he was not asked for
> > > > > > > records etc. Why he had 3 attempts at getting the date Oswald moved in
> > > > > > > "correct". Why the very lengthy (months) delay in interviewing him at
> > > > > > > all.
>
> > > > >           Unknown.  You're letting suspicion fill in the blanks, not a
> > > > > good idea, IMO.
>
> > > > No. I'm asking legitimate questions. The case against Oswald was
> > > > partially built on certain allegations about his time at Neely St. His
> > > > time at Elspeth was of no consequence whatsoever. If it was a choice
> > > > between George and Tobias, why would you call the latter?
>
> > >             Again an unanswerable "why" question.
>
> > Not unanswerable at all. I think the reason is perfectly obvious.
>
>          I say it's unknown.   Maybe George had health problems or
> couldn't testify for some other reason.

Mr Tobias had health issues preventing him from working, but still
testified.

You know as well as I do that the commission hand picked who they
should get before them.

Very likely, imo, it never
> occurred to the WC that anyone would doubt that the Oswalds lived on
> Neely Street.  They had ample evidence that they lived there.

They had ample smoke and mirrors, in lieu of hard evidence, suggesting
he lived there.

They also had a number of indicators he did NOT live there.

They chose the smoke and mirrors.

> > > > > > > Anyone would think that the Elsbeth address was the more significant,
> > > > > > > given the different treatment each investigation received. Where was
> > > > > > > it again that Oswald lived when he planned and launched his attack on
> > > > > > > Walker? Where was he living when the BY photos were taken?
>
> > > > > > > The answer is supposedly Neely St. You wouldn't know it from the lack
> > > > > > > of interest in that apartment shown by investigators...
>
> > > > >         I don't know that there was a "lack of interest" in Neely
> > > > > St.
>
> > > > Then please show me the copies of rent receipts found among Oswald's
> > > > possessions? Show me the receipt book the FBI alleged George had
> > > > showing Oswald rented there? Show me George's testimony. Show me the
> > > > Gray's testimony - surely their testimony was important considering
> > > > they claimed to be ear witnesses to Oswald's propensity for violence?
>
> > >             You know very well that those things don't exist, and if
> > > these people had testified, would you believe them?
>
> > What I do/don't or might believe is not relevant to the question of
> > who was and wasn't called, Jean. You know that.
>
>            No, but it's relevant to the questions you're asking.   Why
> would Oswald have saved rent receipts from Neely after moving to N.O.
> and back?  Show me *any* rent receipts he kept.

What's not relevant as to why they never testified, is whether or not
I would believe any particular witness had they actually been called.

> >  Mrs. Tobias
>
> > > testified that the Oswalds moved to Neely using a stroller.  Elena
> > > Hall and her husband and Gary Taylor testified that they visited the
> > > Neely St. apartment.  Do you believe them?
>
> > Yes. But I don't necessarily believe they were visiting the Oswald's.
>
>          Then you *don't* believe them, because that's not what they
> said.

No. You asked if I believed they visited Neely St. Yeah, sure, why
not? They may well have.

They did in all cases of disputed documents, and in other cases where
extra verification was needed to place Oswald in a particular place
e.e. hotel registry in MC.

Since they lacked hard evidence, such as rental records regarding
Neely St, a verified signature on a contract regarding that property,
should have been obtained. The Neely St situation clearly fits the
same need for such verification because, as with MC, all they had was
smoke and mirrors.

> > > > Water & Sewerage had him as LH OSwald.
> > > > Gas had him as Lee H Oswald
> > > > Electric Co had the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" scrawled in the margin of
> > > > the file and could only suggest the name came from another utility co
> > > > or a neighbor.
>
> > >             Or from LHO himself, maybe?
>
> > Huh? The occupant rings/comes in, but only gives his name, and no
> > other details are taken, and then his name is not even properly
> > recorded in accordance with established procedures, but merely
> > scrawled in the margin?  No, Jean. I don't think so. Scrawling a name
> > in the margin is indicative of a tipoff, written in the margin until
> > it can be verified.
>
>           That's pure speculation, Greg.

If it was Oswald himself advising on Mar 29 (nearly a month after
moving in), then it would have set in motion the procedures they used
- letter being sent etc etc. But no letter was sent until after the
meter reader advised the place was occupied on April 19.

>
> > Who gave the tip? I go with the Paines. Makes far
> > more sense, given the known facts, than it having been Oswald.
>
>           Please cite the evidence for the Paines providing Oswald's
> name.

Please cite the evidence it was Oswald.

> > > > We can rule out another utility on the basis that neither had his
> > > > middle name - just an initial. I think it's a safe assumption that his
> > > > neighbors didn't know his full name either. But after the
> > > > assassination, the first person to mention Neely St to the police was
> > > > Michael Paine...
>
> > >             Ah, another suspect!
>
> > No. Not another. The Paines have long been on my suspects list.
>
>             Oh, I know.  Long list, I expect.

Depends what suspect thing we're talking about.

> > > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
> > > > > > > Anyone could have rang and claimed to be Oswald.
>
> > > > >            But we don't know that anyone did.
>
> > > > The point is, you can't prove he did - which in itself would not mean
> > > > much were it not for the fact that the evidence for him living there
> > > > is - to put it mildly - less than stellar.
>
> > >           The evidence for him living *anywhere else* is much less
> > > than stellar -- it's nonexistent, so far as I can tell.
>
> > That's hat "safe houses" are all about. Hiding.
>
>            What makes you think this was a "safe house"?

No. I am saying if Oswald was not staying at Neely St, he was staying
in a "safe house" elsewhere.

> > >           On the other hand, there are documents
>
> > Receipt book from owner. Never copied by FBI.
> > Letter from Marina saying he has moved, but doesn't give any new
> > address. The Neely address is on a separate sheet and on an envelope.
> > Oswald name scrawled in margin of electric co. Not known how it was
> > obtained.
>
>          I agree: "Not known."
>
> > Oswald name with gas company, They did not know how they got it.
>
>           Another unknown.
>
> > Signed water and sewerage contract. Contract bot copied - sig not
> > verified.
> > Neely address allegedly given to TEC by Oswald - person he gave it to
> > happens to be an FBI informant.
>
>          You don't like this evidence, I see.  Now please list the
> evidence that the Oswalds didn't live on Neely.

No neighbors recall them apart from the one underneath.

Two different versions of how they moved in.

One neighbor, whilst not recalling seeing Oswald in or around that
apartment, advised that two small kids lived there.

The meter reader advising twice that the place was vacant.

The ridiculously low usage of gas and electricity.

The FBI failure to obtain rent records it claimed the landlord had.

The FBI failure to verify Oswald signature on water and sewage
contract.

The landlord - despite allegedly having the records, giving two (or
three?) different dates that Oswald moved in.

> > Anything else I've missed?
>
>            The Hosty record above, maybe.
>
>
>
> >  with that address and
>
> > > testimony from at least eight people putting him on Neely St --and
> > > probably more, if we looked hard enough.
>
> > Ya. And it is a very specific group of people placing him there. Not
> > exactly abroad cross-section of the community...
>
>          Gary Taylor, the Halls, Marina, the Paines, the De
> Mohrenschildts, Mrs. Tobias, even Hosty might be counted.

What do all those (except Hosty) have in common?

>           How many people or documents say that the Oswalds were
> living somewhere *else* during this period?

That's the whole purpose of a "safe house".

> > > > > > > I think the most likely explanations for the state of the evidence and
> > > > > > > lack of obtaining better evidence and calling Neely St witnesses to
> > > > > > > the WC is that Oswald merely parked Marina and June there - or someone
> > > > > > > was living there pretending to be Marina.
>
> > > > >            There's no actual evidence for that, is there?
>
> > > > I could put together a circumstantial case from the records no less
> > > > convincing than the official version - including naming the likely
> > > > candidate as the imposter - if certain information can be checked.
>
> > >           An Oswald imposter?  Why?
>
> > Nope Marina imposter, or someone visiting Marina and being mistaken
> > for her.
>
>           Why would anyone impersonate Marina?

Some think it happened in Louisiana, as well.

> > I am not writing off Marina having lived there yet. All I'm saying is
> > that the case could be made FROM THE EXISTING RECORDS that a specific
> > person was living there and passing herself off as Marina (or
> > alternatively, who post assassination, it was convenient to say this
> > person was Marina).
>
>            Extraordinary claims require at least some good evidence,
> I'd say.

Exactly why the FBI should have verified the signature and obtained
the rental records.

> > > > If
> > > > that information does not fit, I will accept that Marina and June
> > > > stayed there for a short while - with Oswald perhaps paying sporadic
> > > > visits.
>
> > >             And what evidence is there that he wasn't there all the
> > > time?
>
> > No one in the immediate area recalled him as living there - except the
> > Grays. Odd if he was living there unemployed. In NO, he spent a huge
> > amount of time on the porch or in the yard, getting around in bathers.
> > Every single neighbor he had there remembered him and his many
> > peccadilloes. Quite a contrast to Neely St.
>
>           That's not evidence he didn't live there, Greg.  We don't
> know all the circumstances, but off the top of my head ... Dallas in
> March and early April is not N.O. in the summer with no air
> conditioning.  Oswald was working all of March.

Yet during this same period, the Tobias' - just around the corner,
apparently practically lived on the front lawn...

Greg
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

[Bud]

On Jan 21, 8:39 am, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 7:02 pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >          He often used his post box address, even with his brother.
> > > > > > What's wrong with that?
>
> > > > > Jean, he took the PO box out in Oct, 62. Meanwhile he kept his
> > > > > employer appraised of actual street addresses (Taylor's address --->
> > > > > Elsbeth), via his time sheets - until he allegedly moves to Neely St,
> > > > > then after living there a month, he decides to give them his PO Box
> > > > > address instead. What reason could he possibly have had when he moved
> > > > > there, not advise his employer, as he had already done twice?
>
> > > >            He told his brother he was using a P.O. box because he
> > > > moved often, which he did.    Bottom line, nobody can read Oswald's
> > > > dead mind, so most questions beginning "Why did Oswald....?"  are
> > > > forever unanswerable.
>
> > > Jean, questions do not die with people -- otherwise history would be a
> > > big blank sheet.
>
> >         Greg, questions don't die with people, but answers to
> > questions like this one might.
>
> There is an answer, Jean.

Probably a simple one you will overlook to get to the sinister ones
your prefer.

> Look at the time spent on trying to divine a
> motive. Were those learned gentlemen deliberately wasting their time
> on something that couldn't be answered because the only person who
> knew for sure, was dead? They sought an answer that satisfied (in
> their minds) the data they had. In short, it can be answered to the
> satisfaction of some at least, based on the totality of the evidence.

CtTers are always trying to imply that their position is only the
other side of the coin than ours. On examination it really isn`t that
way. We know Oswald to be a political fanatic because of dozens of
actually established incidence and events, not from unanswered
questions.

> Whilst you busy yourself trying to isolate all of these oddities
> because that lessons their impact, you are among those who want the
> evidence AGAINST Oswald looked at as a total package because it
> increases the impact.

<snicker> greg bristled when I suggested that he was just a
collector of suspicious sounding things, but here he admits it.

> The oddities cannot be isolated, Jean.

No, they can`t be connected.

> I will keep reminded you that
> they are numerous regarding Neely St and need considering all
> together.

The answer isn`t heaping mush on mush, the answer is firming these
things up into something tangible.You`ll never do it, you`ll partake
in this hobby for years and die never taking these ideas anywhere.

> > > You want your cake and eat it, too. You want to call changing his
> > > "usual habit" when he got a lift to the Paine's on Thursday instead of
> > > Friday "suspicious" and  indicative of a plan to get his rifle to take
> > > to work the next day....  even though he had only been making those
> > > trips for 6 weeks - hardly long enough to have established a regular
> > > routine.
>
> >         The difference is that Oswald's visit coincided with a bunch
> > of other evidence indicating that he went to Irving to get his
> > rifle.   Without that, the Thursday visit wouldn't be suspicious.
>
> Ah ha. And who saw him with a rifle?

WBF and LMR saw him with it in a bag.

> Your words:  "He told his brother he was using a P.O. box because he
> moved often, which he did."
>
> He took that PO Box out in Oct '62 and didn't tell anyone about it
> apart from his brother, until he wrote it on work time sheet in April,
> 1963 - a month after allegedly moving to Neely St.

Whenever Oswald does something weird perhaps it would be easier to
understand if you were to acknowledge that Oswald was a weirdo.

> It is not consistent with what he told his brother - nor is it
> consistent with his prior behavior of immediately notifying JCS of his
> STREET addresses.
>
> It is one of many red flags concerning Neely St.

It isn`t a red flag about Neely St, it`s a red flag about Oswald.
Read what Marina wrote about her husband (she is a treasure trove of
information regarding how Oswald thought, yet CTers tend to disregard
the person who was closest to LHO) with his plots and loving to be
secretive about things. Why did he use a false name at the
boardinghouse he was staying at at the time of the assassination? I
think that kind of thing just appealed to him, it was part of this
fantasy realm he created for himself to move around in. If this is the
case there may no be discernible answers to many of these issues of
why Oswald did what he did. Marina had this to say in her testimony...

"And I know that Hidell is merely an altered Fidel, and I laughed at
such foolishness. My imagination didn't work that way."

Not many people imagination does work that way, but Oswald`s did.
Unless you can figure him out how can you to figure out the things he
did?

> > > Now you want to say he had a habit of giving out his PO Box # instead
> > > of street address because he was constantly moving.
>
> >          That's the reason Oswald gave his brother for getting a P.O.
> > box.  That may've been part of it, as well as wanting to stay off the
> > FBI's radar.
>
> And his street address couldn't be obtained from the boys at the PO?

They`d have to know to look.

> You're scrabbling for excuses.
>
> > >Yet when he breaks
> > > that routine firstly by giving his employer his street addresses --
> > > until he allegedly moves to Neely and doesn't change his address from
> > > Elsbeth for a whole month - then gives them the PO  address - thus
> > > never advising them of Neely at any time,
> > > and then breaks it a second
> > > time by giving the TEC his Neely street address instead of his PO box
> > > you simply say "move along, nothing to see here..."
>
> >         No, I'm wondering why you find this suspicious.
>
> For the same reason you would if it was evidence of his Lone Nutism.

How is a suspicion evidence of anything?

You`d have no problem replacing ithis explanation with the amazing
idea that someone put Tobias up to saying that the Oswalds moved to
the Neely St apartment, would you? You can be sure that Marina somehow
conveyed the idea that they moved to Neely St because if Tobias had
been put up to saying this she would have contrived a better story
about how she came to find out.

> >            Also, this record saying pretty much the same thing:
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=117...
>
> What an absolute crock!
>
> A Dallas Electric & Light meter reader, part of whose job it was to
> determine occupancy so that he/she could be billed, twice reported the
> apartment vacant. The first time on Feb 19 and the second on March 20.
> How could he twice miss seeing a name plate on the letter box?

The Oswalds didn`t move in until March 2nd, right?

> And
> where and when was this name plate obtained and what happened to it?
> The reader did not note any occupancy until his next visit on April
> 19. This document adds another layer of mystery too, in that it states
> that there was a date associated with Oswald's name noted in the

> margin of the file.... Mar 29...http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

>
> > > > > But now we have Oswald too paranoid to provide his address to his
> > > > > employer, but perfectly at ease in providing it to the TEC (as opposed
> > > > > to hos box number)/
>
> > > >              So what's your explanation, Greg?
>
> > > I don't have one that fully satisfies me, let alone you. It is not
> > > just this; it is a whole raft of peculiarities combined concerning
> > > Neely St. I know you want to treat them separately, but it's a package
> > > deal...
>
> >           I'm just responding to what you write, Greg.  Peculiarities
> > don't necessarily mean anything.
>
> But when one is piled on top of another on top of another and so on, a
> titting point is reached -- and you will continue to try and isolate
> each item so that, on its own, it can be legitimately said it "doesn't
> necessarily mean anything". Not happening, Jean.

And what does it mean when you can`t really go anywhere with them
individually or compiled?

<snicker> When information goes against a CTer`s ideas, it always
the information that is considered dubious and not their ideas.

Hell no.

They had hard evidence he lived there. You just disregard it.

So he is remembered by neighbors.

> Two different versions of how they moved in.

But the fact that they moved in is corroborated, even if details
differ.

> One neighbor, whilst not recalling seeing Oswald in or around that
> apartment, advised that two small kids lived there.
>
> The meter reader advising twice that the place was vacant.

I think it was one of the times. And the other there was electric
usage noted.

> The ridiculously low usage of gas and electricity.

Did Oswald own a TV?

> The FBI failure to obtain rent records it claimed the landlord had.

How is this evidence he didn`t live there? Lack of information
doesn`t support either conclusion.

> The FBI failure to verify Oswald signature on water and sewage
> contract.

How is this evidence he didn`t live there? Lack of information
doesn`t support either conclusion.

> The landlord - despite allegedly having the records, giving two (or
> three?) different dates that Oswald moved in.

But consistent that he did.

[Jean]

On Jan 21, 7:39 am, greg <greg.par...@dockearth.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 7:02 pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >          He often used his post box address, even with his brother.
> > > > > > What's wrong with that?
>
> > > > > Jean, he took the PO box out in Oct, 62. Meanwhile he kept his
> > > > > employer appraised of actual street addresses (Taylor's address --->
> > > > > Elsbeth), via his time sheets - until he allegedly moves to Neely St,
> > > > > then after living there a month, he decides to give them his PO Box
> > > > > address instead. What reason could he possibly have had when he moved
> > > > > there, not advise his employer, as he had already done twice?
>
> > > >            He told his brother he was using a P.O. box because he
> > > > moved often, which he did.    Bottom line, nobody can read Oswald's
> > > > dead mind, so most questions beginning "Why did Oswald....?"  are
> > > > forever unanswerable.
>
> > > Jean, questions do not die with people -- otherwise history would be a
> > > big blank sheet.
>
> >         Greg, questions don't die with people, but answers to
> > questions like this one might.
>
> There is an answer, Jean. Look at the time spent on trying to divine a
> motive. Were those learned gentlemen deliberately wasting their time
> on something that couldn't be answered because the only person who
> knew for sure, was dead? They sought an answer that satisfied (in
> their minds) the data they had. In short, it can be answered to the
> satisfaction of some at least, based on the totality of the evidence.

They sought an answer, but the WC discussed motive in a
section
called "The Unanswered Questions."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0223a.htm

>
> Whilst you busy yourself trying to isolate all of these oddities
> because that lessons their impact, you are among those who want the
> evidence AGAINST Oswald looked at as a total package because it
> increases the impact.

I'm discussing the oddities one at a time because you are
discussing them one at a time. I WANT you to put them all together
and tell me what you think they mean.

It's easy to do that with the evidence against Oswald
because the pieces fit together to tell a story. He went to Irving
on Thursday, left his wedding ring, brought a package of "curtain
rods" to work, and when the cops arrived, the blanket was empty. You
don't accept all that, but there *is* a story there, like it or not.

>
> The oddities cannot be isolated, Jean. I will keep reminded you that
> they are numerous regarding Neely St and need considering all
> together.

Good! Please consider them all together and tell me what the
story is.

>
> > > You want your cake and eat it, too. You want to call changing his
> > > "usual habit" when he got a lift to the Paine's on Thursday instead of
> > > Friday "suspicious" and  indicative of a plan to get his rifle to take
> > > to work the next day....  even though he had only been making those
> > > trips for 6 weeks - hardly long enough to have established a regular
> > > routine.
>
> >         The difference is that Oswald's visit coincided with a bunch
> > of other evidence indicating that he went to Irving to get his
> > rifle.   Without that, the Thursday visit wouldn't be suspicious.
>
> Ah ha. And who saw him with a rifle?
>
> Your words:  "He told his brother he was using a P.O. box because he
> moved often, which he did."

Sorry, what I meant was that it was true that he moved
often.

>
> He took that PO Box out in Oct '62 and didn't tell anyone about it
> apart from his brother, until he wrote it on work time sheet in April,
> 1963 - a month after allegedly moving to Neely St.
>
> It is not consistent with what he told his brother - nor is it
> consistent with his prior behavior of immediately notifying JCS of his
> STREET addresses.

Oswald didn't have to always be consistent. Who is?

After Robert gave the FBI his brother's Mercedes St. address
in 1962, two FBI agents visited him twice. Writer Albert Newman
believed that's the reason Oswald never again gave Robert a street
address.

>
> It is one of many red flags concerning Neely St.
>
> > > Now you want to say he had a habit of giving out his PO Box # instead
> > > of street address because he was constantly moving.
>
> >          That's the reason Oswald gave his brother for getting a P.O.
> > box.  That may've been part of it, as well as wanting to stay off the
> > FBI's radar.
>
> And his street address couldn't be obtained from the boys at the PO?
> You're scrabbling for excuses.

IMO, you yourself should be looking for alternative
explanations instead of letting suspicion fill in the blanks.

>
> > >Yet when he breaks
> > > that routine firstly by giving his employer his street addresses --
> > > until he allegedly moves to Neely and doesn't change his address from
> > > Elsbeth for a whole month - then gives them the PO  address - thus
> > > never advising them of Neely at any time,
> > > and then breaks it a second
> > > time by giving the TEC his Neely street address instead of his PO box
> > > you simply say "move along, nothing to see here..."
>
> >         No, I'm wondering why you find this suspicious.
>
> For the same reason you would if it was evidence of his Lone Nutism.
>
> You speak of
>
> > breaking a routine.  What routine?   If Oswald wasn't having his
> > paycheck mailed to him, he didn't need to update his address at JCS.
>
> And yet, until Neely St, he did just that...
>
> > And maybe the TEC required his street address.  Or maybe there was
> > some other reason neither of us can think of.
>
> He just keeps running into FBI informants where ever he wanders...

My guess is that an FBI agent called the TEC at some point,
maybe on a pretext, and asked for Oswald's address. Whoever answered
automatically became an "FBI informant."

In the document I just linked to, it says "Will determine
present employment of LEE OSWALD." Maybe Hosty called TEC.

Not really. The Tobiases didn't kick them out, the
building owner did. She and hubby were sitting on the lawn when Marina
walked by with June after they'd moved. She already knew they'd moved
"a short distance away." Neely was just around the corner.

QUOTE:

Mrs. TOBIAS. She was standing by a car--you see, those cars were
parked there and I knew where she went, my husband and I would take
walks and I said, "Where did you go?" And she made "214" on the car
and then I knew it was Neely--I said, "Neely."

UNQUOTE

>
> >            Also, this record saying pretty much the same thing:
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=117...
>
> What an absolute crock!
>
> A Dallas Electric & Light meter reader, part of whose job it was to
> determine occupancy so that he/she could be billed, twice reported the
> apartment vacant. The first time on Feb 19 and the second on March 20.

The Oswald weren't living there on Feb 19. March 20 on
Ruth's calendar showed a meeting with Marina, Ruth sometimes brought
her to Irving. So maybe the house was empty when the meter man came
by and he made an assumption.

I take it you don't believe Hosty or this record above.

> How could he twice miss seeing a name plate on the letter box?

How do you know he looked for one?

> And
> where and when was this name plate obtained and what happened to it?

It wasn't obtained. Hosty didn't steal it.

> The reader did not note any occupancy until his next visit on April
> 19. This document adds another layer of mystery too, in that it states
> that there was a date associated with Oswald's name noted in the
> margin of the file.... Mar 29...

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

Please give me that link again.

>
> > > > > But now we have Oswald too paranoid to provide his address to his
> > > > > employer, but perfectly at ease in providing it to the TEC (as opposed
> > > > > to hos box number)/
>
> > > >              So what's your explanation, Greg?
>
> > > I don't have one that fully satisfies me, let alone you. It is not
> > > just this; it is a whole raft of peculiarities combined concerning
> > > Neely St. I know you want to treat them separately, but it's a package
> > > deal...
>
> >           I'm just responding to what you write, Greg.  Peculiarities
> > don't necessarily mean anything.
>
> But when one is piled on top of another on top of another and so on, a
> titting point is reached -- and you will continue to try and isolate
> each item so that, on its own, it can be legitimately said it "doesn't
> necessarily mean anything". Not happening, Jean.

I don't expect to change your mind. I'm presenting another
point of view.

I'll take that as a "yes."

>
> > > Who supports Mrs Tobias in regard to them moving their belongings in a
> > > stroller?
>
> >           The stroller part, nobody I'm aware of.  Do you think
> > somebody told her to make that up?
>
> No. I think she was probably confused and getting mixed up with seeing
> Marina pushing Junie around in the stroller.
>
> You know, the same as the Grays got confused by mixing up the Oswald's
> leaving Neely St by car with arriving by car.

Again, do you think someone told the Tobiases to make that
up? Your theory comes with a lot of unclaimed baggage, Greg. Lots
of perjury, fake documents, etc.

>
> > > And are you now suggesting that the Gray's were mistaken about Lee
> > > beating on Marina?
>
> >             No, I just didn't recall that wording.  I believe that he
> > hit her at least once, because several witnesses reported a black
> > eye.   Do you disagree?
>
> I simply do not know whether he did or not; nor do I find it
> particularly relevant.

I agree it's not relevant. I didn't bring this up.

>
> > >  and tells her how to get there.    Odd, if Ruth had
>
> > > > already moved her there earlier that month.
>
> > > But not odd if it was a different person, moving someone else in
> > > there.
>
> >            You lost me there.  How many people had to lie for this to
> > be true?  What was the purpose of all this chicanery?
>
> Not saying it happened. I'm saying I could make just as good a case
> for it as the case for it being the Oswalds - using the same source-
> the 26 volumes.

Again you didn't really answer my questions.

>
> > > > > > > > The Grays lived downstairs and were the ones who complained that
> > > > > > > > Oswald was beating on Marina.
>
> > > >             I thought something was said about their "fighting," not
> > > > "beating".   Do you doubt that Oswald hit Marina?   There is  a lot of
> > > > testimony on that from Marguerite, et al.
>
> > > The Gray's used the less definitive term with the FBI. However Mr
> > > George was adamant that the Grays told him Oswald was beating her.
>
> > > > > >              Gray also recalled that Marina spoke no English and that
> > > > > > Oswald "appeared unfriendly and the BRAYS made no attempt to become
> > > > > > better acquainted."  Sure sounds like the Oswalds to me.
>
> > > > > Oswald obviously had a split personality. He was reported on the bus
> > > > > to Mexico as super friendly. Ditto when he met the Kloepfer girls -
> > > > > one of whom told me she thought he was hitting on her.
>
> > > >             Friendly to two girls on the bus, the Kloepfers,  and a
> > > > Japanese woman at a party, as I recall.   Normal for a young male.
> > > > Usually he was not friendly with neighbors or coworkers, though.   He
> > > > kept to himself.
>
> > > So Oswald was a "normal" young guy?
>
> >            Normal behavior for a young male.  Or an old male, for that
> > matter.
>
> He was "normal" "yes" or "no"?

I believe he seemed normal to most people who knew him, but he
killed two people. I don't think he was psychotic ("crazy"), but not
really "normal."

>
> > > > > There was another person staying with the Grays, btw. It was she who
> > > > > is now adamant that Marina's English was okay - an opinion she came by
> > > > > via a number of chats with Marina about babies and other everyday
> > > > > stuff.
>
> > > > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> > > >              Broken link.
>
> > > Not in the original post it was in.
>
> > > > > > > > You also need to consider why Mr & Mrs Tobias were called to testify,
> > > > > > > > but Mr George (the Neely landlord) was not. Why he was not asked for
> > > > > > > > records etc. Why he had 3 attempts at getting the date Oswald moved in
> > > > > > > > "correct". Why the very lengthy (months) delay in interviewing him at
> > > > > > > > all.
>
> > > > > >           Unknown.  You're letting suspicion fill in the blanks, not a
> > > > > > good idea, IMO.
>
> > > > > No. I'm asking legitimate questions. The case against Oswald was
> > > > > partially built on certain allegations about his time at Neely St. His
> > > > > time at Elspeth was of no consequence whatsoever. If it was a choice
> > > > > between George and Tobias, why would you call the latter?
>
> > > >             Again an unanswerable "why" question.
>
> > > Not unanswerable at all. I think the reason is perfectly obvious.
>
> >          I say it's unknown.   Maybe George had health problems or
> > couldn't testify for some other reason.
>
> Mr Tobias had health issues preventing him from working, but still
> testified.

So? Maybe George had different health issues. I don't know
why he didn't testify, but then, neither do you.

>
> You know as well as I do that the commission hand picked who they
> should get before them.
>
>  Very likely, imo, it never
>
> > occurred to the WC that anyone would doubt that the Oswalds lived on
> > Neely Street.  They had ample evidence that they lived there.
>
> They had ample smoke and mirrors, in lieu of hard evidence, suggesting
> he lived there.
>
> They also had a number of indicators he did NOT live there.
>
> They chose the smoke and mirrors.

I think it's the other way around, sorry.

But they said they visited the Oswalds. They lied?

No, the WC had testimony from his widow and other people
saying he lived there, the address on documents including the
postmarked letter, and photos taken in the back yard. (Yes, I know
you think they're faked. The WC didn't.)

>
> > > > > Water & Sewerage had him as LH OSwald.
> > > > > Gas had him as Lee H Oswald
> > > > > Electric Co had the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" scrawled in the margin of
> > > > > the file and could only suggest the name came from another utility co
> > > > > or a neighbor.
>
> > > >             Or from LHO himself, maybe?
>
> > > Huh? The occupant rings/comes in, but only gives his name, and no
> > > other details are taken, and then his name is not even properly
> > > recorded in accordance with established procedures, but merely
> > > scrawled in the margin?  No, Jean. I don't think so. Scrawling a name
> > > in the margin is indicative of a tipoff, written in the margin until
> > > it can be verified.
>
> >           That's pure speculation, Greg.
>
> If it was Oswald himself advising on Mar 29 (nearly a month after
> moving in), then  it would have set in motion the procedures they used
> - letter being sent etc etc. But no letter was sent until after the
> meter reader advised the place was occupied on April 19.

Sorry, I don't follow that.

>
>
>
> > > Who gave the tip? I go with the Paines. Makes far
> > > more sense, given the known facts, than it having been Oswald.
>
> >           Please cite the evidence for the Paines providing Oswald's
> > name.
>
> Please cite the evidence it was Oswald.

I don't know where the name came from. I take it you have
no evidence the Paines provided it.

>
> > > > > We can rule out another utility on the basis that neither had his
> > > > > middle name - just an initial. I think it's a safe assumption that his
> > > > > neighbors didn't know his full name either. But after the
> > > > > assassination, the first person to mention Neely St to the police was
> > > > > Michael Paine...
>
> > > >             Ah, another suspect!
>
> > > No. Not another. The Paines have long been on my suspects list.
>
> >             Oh, I know.  Long list, I expect.
>
> Depends what suspect thing we're talking about.

Everyone who said the Oswalds lived on Neely St.

>
> > > > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
> > > > > > > > Anyone could have rang and claimed to be Oswald.
>
> > > > > >            But we don't know that anyone did.
>
> > > > > The point is, you can't prove he did - which in itself would not mean
> > > > > much were it not for the fact that the evidence for him living there
> > > > > is - to put it mildly - less than stellar.
>
> > > >           The evidence for him living *anywhere else* is much less
> > > > than stellar -- it's nonexistent, so far as I can tell.
>
> > > That's hat "safe houses" are all about. Hiding.
>
> >            What makes you think this was a "safe house"?
>
> No. I am saying if Oswald was not staying at Neely St, he was staying
> in a "safe house" elsewhere.

Suspicion is a good liar, makes up fascinating stories.

>
> > > >           On the other hand, there are documents
>
> > > Receipt book from owner. Never copied by FBI.
> > > Letter from Marina saying he has moved, but doesn't give any new
> > > address. The Neely address is on a separate sheet and on an envelope.
> > > Oswald name scrawled in margin of electric co. Not known how it was
> > > obtained.
>
> >          I agree: "Not known."
>
> > > Oswald name with gas company, They did not know how they got it.
>
> >           Another unknown.
>
> > > Signed water and sewerage contract. Contract bot copied - sig not
> > > verified.
> > > Neely address allegedly given to TEC by Oswald - person he gave it to
> > > happens to be an FBI informant.
>
> >          You don't like this evidence, I see.  Now please list the
> > evidence that the Oswalds didn't live on Neely.
>
> No neighbors recall them apart from the one underneath.

I found this, saying that there were no other neighbors on
that street:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95615&relPageId=99

>
> Two different versions of how they moved in.

A different version from the Gray, who may've been wrong.

>
> One neighbor, whilst not recalling seeing Oswald in or around that
> apartment, advised that two small kids lived there.

Yes, and maybe he saw June and one of Ruth's children.
Can you rule that out?

>
> The meter reader advising twice that the place was vacant.

See above.

>
> The ridiculously low usage of gas and electricity.

They had no dryer, TV, or other power guzzlers.

>
> The FBI failure to obtain rent records it claimed the landlord had.

This is not evidence they didn't live there.

>
> The FBI failure to verify Oswald signature on water and sewage
> contract.

Not evidence they didn't live there.

>
> The landlord - despite allegedly having the records, giving two (or
> three?) different dates that Oswald moved in.

Ditto.

>
> > > Anything else I've missed?
>
> >            The Hosty record above, maybe.
>
> > >  with that address and
>
> > > > testimony from at least eight people putting him on Neely St --and
> > > > probably more, if we looked hard enough.
>
> > > Ya. And it is a very specific group of people placing him there. Not
> > > exactly abroad cross-section of the community...
>
> >          Gary Taylor, the Halls, Marina, the Paines, the De
> > Mohrenschildts, Mrs. Tobias, even Hosty might be counted.
>
> What do all those (except Hosty) have in common?

They all knew the Oswalds, and according to your theory,
they're all liars. (Yes, I know that's not your answer.)

>
> >           How many people or documents say that the Oswalds were
> > living somewhere *else* during this period?
>
> That's the whole purpose of a "safe house".

In other words, "none."

>
> > > > > > > > I think the most likely explanations for the state of the evidence and
> > > > > > > > lack of obtaining better evidence and calling Neely St witnesses to
> > > > > > > > the WC is that Oswald merely parked Marina and June there - or someone
> > > > > > > > was living there pretending to be Marina.
>
> > > > > >            There's no actual evidence for that, is there?
>
> > > > > I could put together a circumstantial case from the records no less
> > > > > convincing than the official version - including naming the likely
> > > > > candidate as the imposter - if certain information can be checked.
>
> > > >           An Oswald imposter?  Why?
>
> > > Nope Marina imposter, or someone visiting Marina and being mistaken
> > > for her.
>
> >           Why would anyone impersonate Marina?
>
> Some think it happened in Louisiana, as well.

Witness error is much, much, much more common than
impersonations.

>
> > > I am not writing off Marina having lived there yet. All I'm saying is
> > > that the case could be made FROM THE EXISTING RECORDS that a specific
> > > person was living there and passing herself off as Marina (or
> > > alternatively, who post assassination, it was convenient to say this
> > > person was Marina).
>
> >            Extraordinary claims require at least some good evidence,
> > I'd say.
>
> Exactly why the FBI should have verified the signature and obtained
> the rental records.

That the Oswalds lived there isn't an extraordinary claim.

>
> > > > > If
> > > > > that information does not fit, I will accept that Marina and June
> > > > > stayed there for a short while - with Oswald perhaps paying sporadic
> > > > > visits.
>
> > > >             And what evidence is there that he wasn't there all the
> > > > time?
>
> > > No one in the immediate area recalled him as living there - except the
> > > Grays. Odd if he was living there unemployed. In NO, he spent a huge
> > > amount of time on the porch or in the yard, getting around in bathers.
> > > Every single neighbor he had there remembered him and his many
> > > peccadilloes. Quite a contrast to Neely St.
>
> >           That's not evidence he didn't live there, Greg.  We don't
> > know all the circumstances, but off the top of my head ... Dallas in
> > March and early April is not N.O. in the summer with no air
> > conditioning.  Oswald was working all of March.
>
> Yet during this same period, the Tobias' - just around the corner,
> apparently practically lived on the front lawn...
>
> Greghttp://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

Please try to fit all these "oddities" into a coherent
storyline.

Jean