The Jiffy Store "Oswald" Sighting

Greg,

This is an appropriate place for me to comment on a recent hypothesis you have posted at Education Forum regarding the Jiffy store episode, since this thread has evolved into Harvey & Lee issues. The four pages of documents concerning that episode are available at http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/ShowDoc.dodocId=95645&relPageId=125

I'm not swayed in the least by your hypothesis, which is that an underage minor was in the Jiffy store on Saturday morning, November 23, and not John Armstrong's "Lee" Oswald on Friday morning, November 22.

I know I won't change your mind, and that you have found an alternate explanation that is satisfactory to you. But please bear in mind that your hypothesis asks us to believe that A) Store clerk Fred Moore lied when he told the FBI he asked Oswald for ID (the FBI report states that he did just that) and B) that Moore was stating the truth when he recalled Oswald as having been in the store the day previous to seeing Oswald getting shot by Ruby, i.e. the day previous to Sunday.

You further postulate that Moore bragged among family & friends that he'd had Oswald in his store, when it had actually been an underage drinker, and that someone unknown became concerned enough to report this to the FBI, whence Moore came up with his lie about asking Oswald for ID.

*

Moore stated plainly that "he asked for identification as to proof of age for purchase of two bottles of beer. MOORE said he figured the man was over 21 but the store frequently requires proof by reason of past difficulties with local authorities for serving beer to minors."

Even though a convenience store such as this had oftentimes sold beer to minors without requiring an ID be shown, he felt obligated to ask Oswald for an ID because the store had gotten some flak for illegally selling beer to minors.

You're turning this stated situation on its tail by postulating that Moore actually didn't ask for an ID, and only mentioned it after the fact, as a CYA for the FBI. And you speculate further that Moore chose to "puff himself up" among family & friends by turning a non-event (selling beer to a minor) into a major event (IDing the president's assassin).
And so someone became concerned enough to contact the FBI.

This ignores the interpretation that Moore himself went to the FBI on November 30, having had it on his mind that post-assassination week.

You're further postulating that Moore's placement of the incident, via "he recalled the name and the identification of OSWALD as his customer in the store on the previous day... to his being shot by RUBY", as a verifiable truth. We know that it isn't that form of truth, because on that Saturday Oswald was under arrest; and Moore should have realized that.

I interpret this as Moore not being exact enough in his mind as to distinguishing, on that assassination weekend, Friday from Saturday. To give a rough analogy, someone might say, "The Yankees won the World Series last year." I know what they're saying, even though the Yankees actually won 2 years ago and the Giants won last year.

One last point. I interpret store owner George Worthington as not remembering Moore's statement that Lee Oswald "was a good Jewish name" simply as Worthington not wanting to get involved.

*

This FBI report would not stand on its own feet, were it not able to be tied into other factors. It does suggest that "Lee" Oswald was in the vicinity of the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of November 22nd ("Harvey" was working there in the meanwhile). But it is supplementary evidence.

It supplements the uncanny resemblance between the 6th-floor west window man captured in Dillard's photo and the 1957 Mercer farm photo previously singled out by John Armstrong as being of "Lee", not "Harvey.

And this "Arnold Rowland window" man was seen there at 12:15, and at approximately 12:23 by Carolyn Walther in the 5th-floor east window with a rifle (a posed public portrait of the assassin waiting for his target to come into view- Douglass) and at 12:30 again in the 6th-floor west window.

It supplements the discovery of Oswald's license at the Texas Department of Safety on November 27; this wasn't known until the Garrison investigation. And the historic Oswald had only an application for a learner's permit, and wasn't known to drive.

*

I interpret the Jiffy store as "Lee" being in a bad state of nerves before his assignment and opting for a couple of beers; getting somewhat surprised to be even asked for ID; says, "Sure, I got ID", which rings to me like a true statement; and Moore brooding about this incident after the 24th and deciding to contact the FBI. He dealt with the public all the time and it was for the public's benefit to let them know further information about Oswald.

Richard Gilbride wrote:Greg,

This is an appropriate place for me to comment on a recent hypothesis you have posted at Education Forum regarding the Jiffy store episode, since this thread has evolved into Harvey & Lee issues. The four pages of documents concerning that episode are available at http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/ShowDoc.dodocId=95645&relPageId=125

I'm not swayed in the least by your hypothesis,

Richard, that's okay. You have much which I find admirable, and that more than makes up for this minor "sin". Ain't no godamn H & L theory gonna make me change my mind about you, my friend.

which is that an underage minor was in the Jiffy store on Saturday morning, November 23,

Yeppers

and not John Armstrong's "Lee" Oswald on Friday morning, November 22.

I don't understand why he is "Armstrong's Lee"? Isn't Armstrong's Lee the real flesh and blood NO born Lee Harvard Oswald? If so, how does Armstrong suddenly have ownership?

I know I won't change your mind, and that you have found an alternate explanation that is satisfactory to you. But please bear in mind that your hypothesis asks us to believe that A) Store clerk Fred Moore lied when he told the FBI he asked Oswald for ID (the FBI report states that he did just that)

There is no detail he gave about Oswald that he could not have obtained from public sources.

and B) that Moore was stating the truth when he recalled Oswald as having been in the store the day previous to seeing Oswald getting shot by Ruby, i.e. the day previous to Sunday.

The truth can inadvertently slip out under pressure.

You further postulate that Moore bragged among family & friends that he'd had Oswald in his store, when it had actually been an underage drinker, and that someone unknown became concerned enough to report this to the FBI, whence Moore came up with his lie about asking Oswald for ID.

Yeppers.

*

Moore stated plainly that "he asked for identification as to proof of age for purchase of two bottles of beer. MOORE said he figured the man was over 21 but the store frequently requires proof by reason of past difficulties with local authorities for serving beer to minors."

Even though a convenience store such as this had oftentimes sold beer to minors without requiring an ID be shown, he felt obligated to ask Oswald for an ID because the store had gotten some flak for illegally selling beer to minors.

You're turning this stated situation on its tail by postulating that Moore actually didn't ask for an ID, and only mentioned it after the fact, as a CYA for the FBI. And you speculate further that Moore chose to "puff himself up" among family & friends by turning a non-event (selling beer to a minor) into a major event (IDing the president's assassin).
And so someone became concerned enough to contact the FBI.

This ignores the interpretation that Moore himself went to the FBI on November 30, having had it on his mind that post-assassination week.

The FBI document outlining the interview with him commences with the words "Fred Moore... advised of the following concerning a report that he had waited on Lee Harvey Oswald..."

I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way than that the FBI paid Moore a visit pursuant to a lead they had received from a third party. Nowhere does it say "Fred Moore contacted Dallas office to advise that..." So yes. It ignores your interpretation. It's a non-starter out of the blocks, imo.

You're further postulating that Moore's placement of the incident, via "he recalled the name and the identification of OSWALD as his customer in the store on the previous day... to his being shot by RUBY", as a verifiable truth.

No Richard. It's only a verifiable truth that this is what he said. And it [i]is[/i] all we have to go with.

We know that it isn't that form of truth, because on that Saturday Oswald was under arrest; and Moore should have realized that.

He was caught unawares by the FBI and was winging it, no doubt quite nervously. As I say, the truth has a habit of slipping under that sort of stress...

I interpret this as Moore not being exact enough in his mind as to distinguishing, on that assassination weekend, Friday from Saturday. To give a rough analogy, someone might say, "The Yankees won the World Series last year." I know what they're saying, even though the Yankees actually won 2 years ago and the Giants won last year.

You're talking about a few days as opposed to years, and you ignore his fabulous memory when it came to the month and year of Oswald's birth.

One last point. I interpret store owner George Worthington as not remembering Moore's statement that Lee Oswald "was a good Jewish name" simply as Worthington not wanting to get involved.

You're free to hold that interpretation. And It may well be true. But even if it is, how does that affect the fact that "Lee Oswald" is not a Jewish name? On the other hand, we know an actual Jewish name had been on Moore's mind - that of Jack Rubinstein.

*

This FBI report would not stand on its own feet, were it not able to be tied into other factors.

It is not tied to any other factors. That is a matter of connecting the dots and then working backwards to justify the connection.

It does suggest that "Lee" Oswald was in the vicinity of the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of November 22nd ("Harvey" was working there in the meanwhile). But it is supplementary evidence.

Joining dots and working backwards from there.

It supplements the uncanny resemblance between the 6th-floor west window man captured in Dillard's photo and the 1957 Mercer farm photo previously singled out by John Armstrong as being of "Lee", not "Harvey.

Haven't seen it, so can't comment except to say that If it ain't true, it can't supplement anything.

And this "Arnold Rowland window" man was seen there at 12:15, and at approximately 12:23 by Carolyn Walther in the 5th-floor east window with a rifle (a posed public portrait of the assassin waiting for his target to come into view- Douglass) and at 12:30 again in the 6th-floor west window.

As above.

It supplements the discovery of Oswald's license at the Texas Department of Safety on November 27; this wasn't known until the Garrison investigation. And the historic Oswald had only an application for a learner's permit, and wasn't known to drive.

Mr. JENNER - Mr. Chairman, I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 426 a form or document which purports to be a driver's permit or driver's license permit application by Lee Harvey Oswald. It is a one-page form document on heavy board, or at least heavy paper.
Are you familiar sufficiently with the handwriting or handprinting of Lee Harvey Oswald to be able to tell us whether the writing and handprinting on that document is or is not Lee Harvey Oswald's?
Mrs. PAINE - I am not sufficiently familiar. I can simply compare it with m only other thing I have seen in his printing which is what he wrote down in my diary.
Mr. JENNER - Refreshing your recollection in that respect and looking at the exhibit, if you are able to do so, would you give us your opinion as to whether the exhibit is in the handwriting or handprinting of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. PAINE - I think it very likely is.
Mr. JENNER - In your short talk with Lee Harvey Oswald on the subject of his having gone to the license application department in Dallas, was anything said about his actually having filled out a driver's license or a learner's permit application?
Mrs. PAINE - No; nothing.
Mr. DULLES - Could we have the date of this document?
Mr. JENNER - If it is dated. My recollection is it is not.
Mrs. PAINE - His birthday is on it only. Picked up at his room on the date of the assassination. I guess it was picked up, I don't know.
Mr. JENNER - Could I review this with you a little bit? Did Lee Harvey Oswald on this occasion tell you in the course of what limited telephone conversation you had with him, that he had gone to the driver's license application bureau?
Mrs. PAINE - No; he told Marina.

Isn't it possible that the "license" seen by Aletha Frair was actually the Learner's Permit he'd applied?

Let's also, for the sake of argument, assume you are right about Moore's man being Lee Oswald - isn't it possible that what he actually produced was the permit application - which - according to the above testimony, bore his date of birth?

I interpret the Jiffy store as "Lee" being in a bad state of nerves before his assignment and opting for a couple of beers; getting somewhat surprised to be even asked for ID; says, "Sure, I got ID", which rings to me like a true statement;

So you don't subscribe to the usual theory that this was a matter of deliberately trying to get noticed to boost the conspiracy angle and/or create confusion for investigators later? You're such a rebel. Careful you're not excommunicated.

and Moore brooding about this incident after the 24th and deciding to contact the FBI.

That's your interpretation. But it is at complete odds with what the report indicates (and DOESN'T indicate)

He dealt with the public all the time and it was for the public's benefit to let them know further information about Oswald.

And this stand up pillar of Dallas society also sold beer to minors.

Again, I am not swayed by your hypothesis in the least.

"FRED MOORE... advised of the following concerning a report that he had waited on LEE HARVEY OSWALD..."

There is no typed-up report about who contacted the FBI about Moore's claim. The likelihood is that this was a tip that was phoned in, noted on a slip of paper by whoever received the call, who later handed it to SA David Barry and requested that Barry check up on this.

This phone tip came from either Fred Moore himself, store owner George Worthington (whom Moore had told, sometime during the week, about Oswald being in the store) or, as you postulate, a third party.

I have no good reason not to assume it was Moore himself.

*

"Worthington could not remember what comment MOORE had made; had no recollection that MOORE remarked the name LEE OSWALD was a good Jewish name."

Worthington either didn't remember, or didn't want to get involved. The fact that Rubenstein is a "good Jewish name" undoubtedly influenced Moore's accounting of giving the remark. But Moore's accounting of having said this is not central to the claim that he'd seen LEE HARVEY OSWALD display a license.

Moore had a very good memory for the year of birth on the license, but was off as to the calender date: "the 10th of the month", whereas Oswald was born on the 10th month on the 18th day, 10/18/39; a slight misreport by Barry or a slight mismemory by Moore.

"Further identification of this individual as OSWALD, MOORE said, arose when he had seen OSWALD on television...prior to being shot by RUBY. At this time, he recalled the name and the identification of OSWALD as the customer in his store the previous day."

Obviously Oswald was in jail the previous day, Saturday. There is no indication that Moore otherwise watched Oswald on television over that weekend; he is saying that this was his first recognition that Oswald had been in his store "the previous day", i.e. very recently.

I can't circle my wagons around a timeframe-placement like that and dispute that the incident ever happened.

*

I saw with my own eyes the pink Texas driver's license (about 2 1/2 inches by 3 1/2 inches). The license had the name 'Lee Harvey Oswald' printed on the card as the licensee. The license was stained with some sort of brown discoloration.

s/Aletha Frair
New Orleans DA office, 2/14/68

Mrs. Frair said the brown stains on the dirty, worn license may have been caused by carrying it in a brown wallet. The license was the talk of the office since everyone knew who Oswald was...
TDPS employee Mrs. Lee Bozarth stated categorically that she knew form direct personal experience there was a Texas driver's license and a file for Lee Harvey Oswald, and that it was pulled and given to a federal agency in early December, 1963... Six other TDPD employees also saw the file including Ray Sundy, Joyce Bostic, Inez Leake, Gayle Scott, Peggy Smith and Mrs. Ernie Isaacs.

-Harvey and Lee, p. 799, with 5 supporting documents on the companion CD

I won't accept any speculation about a form for a learner's permit being shown in lieu of a license.

*

Turn to photopage A55 of "Matrix for Assassination" to see the comparison between the 6th-floor window man and the 1957 hunting photo. John Armstrong detected that this hunting photo was of "Lee", via an SA Robert Schoenecker interview with fellow Camp Pendleton recruit Allen Felde, at XXIII, p. 797:

"Both men were stationed at San Diego until January, 1957, at which time Felde stated that they were transferred to Camp Pendleton for combat training. This combat training lasted until May 1957..."

And via Oswald's own handwritten account of his background, discovered by the DPD among his possessions, XVI p. 337:

Oswald stated that he had served at Camp Pendleton in "April and May 1957".

Someone other than him visited the Mercer farm in March 1957 and got photographed by Robert Oswald.

*

I don't look at the Jiffy store visit as a conscious attempt to muddy the waters. Like I say, "Lee" likely didn't expect to get ID'd.

Further evidence of "Lee" on November 22nd, to my mind, comes via the T.F. White sighting of him in a car at the El Chico parking lot at about 2:00 PM, and via the Robert Vinson account of being on a C-54 that made a makeshift landing on the Trinity River flood plain that afterwards headed for Roswell AFB.

I might mention that ALL of my work regarding end-of-WWII Nazi technology, its incorporation into the US space program, and the MAJESTIC documents was completed before I even heard of Vinson through Douglass' book. Vinson's account dovetailed very neatly into H & L/MJ-12 scenario I had laid out, which to my mind, was good confirmation of its truth.

Again, I am not swayed by your hypothesis in the least.

Richard, are you looking to get crossed off my dream team of investigators? If so, forget about it. Not happening. You're on and you're staying on.

There is no typed-up report about who contacted the FBI about Moore's claim. The likelihood is that this was a tip that was phoned in, noted on a slip of paper by whoever received the call, who later handed it to SA David Barry and requested that Barry check up on this.

This phone tip came from either Fred Moore himself, store owner George Worthington (whom Moore had told, sometime during the week, about Oswald being in the store) or, as you postulate, a third party.

I have no good reason not to assume it was Moore himself.

Can we agree that the FBI was, if nothing else, consistent in the way it dealt with tipoffs in this case?

Here is an example of an Oswald sighting tip coming in from a third party:

dalrymple report

We can see in this example, the FBI interviewed the informant first. To my mind, that rules out it being a third party who gave their name.

That leaves us with an anonymous tip, or Moore himself. But had it been Moore, it would have been noted in the FBI report we know about, or else noted in a separate memo/report.

To maintain it was Moore, you are left with arguing that Moore reported it himself anonymously - which makes no sense at all.

Worthington either didn't remember, or didn't want to get involved. The fact that Rubenstein is a "good Jewish name" undoubtedly influenced Moore's accounting of giving the remark. But Moore's accounting of having said this is not central to the claim that he'd seen LEE HARVEY OSWALD display a license.

It goes to the issue about which day it happened. And if Worthington didn't want to get involved, you have placed yourself in the position of lifting Moore up to "hero" status for wanting to do the right thing, while relegating his boss to schmuck status for not recognizing a once-in-a-lifetime free publicity opportunity that money could not buy.

However, I actually agree, albeit for a different reason - Worthington did NOT want to get involved. He knew that the person leaving as he entered that day had been a minor.

Moore had a very good memory for the year of birth on the license, but was off as to the calender date: "the 10th of the month", whereas Oswald was born on the 10th month on the 18th day, 10/18/39; a slight misreport by Barry or a slight mismemory by Moore.

Oswald's date of birth was publicly available, and had been published multiple times by the time of this interview. That he recalled the month and year is not proof he had seen any of Oswald's ID whatsoever.

We would not let a LN witness of as lightly as you want to let Moore off, but the same rigorous standards need to apply.

All for now. Will deal with the license issue separately.

Also - if you're happy to go this way - I can appoint a moderator to keep this on track and to call the shots so to speak. I'm happy to have someone who accepts to whatever degree, Armstrong's theory, so long as they have a rep for being fair minded.

Any suggestions? Any volunteers?

Hi Greg/Richard

Just wanted to drop in and say "Hi" to you both.

I don't want to do anything that will steer your current debate off course but I do have quite a bit to say about Harvey & Lee.

Just to give Richard a quick heads-up on where I stand; I'm sometimes incredibly impressed with Armstrong's work, sometimes feel completely let down by him (especially when it comes to his footnotes and sources) and I don't complete buy the overall theory.

I would like to transplant the DeVilbiss job application discussion from the EF to here if you are cool with that, Greg. I'm going to PDF the relevant section and e-mail you it if that will help you out?

Anyway, I'll drop by in the next few days and see if we can shake some of the jigsaw pieces out.

Cheers

Lee

Lee David Farley wrote:Hi Greg/Richard

Just wanted to drop in and say "Hi" to you both.

I don't want to do anything that will steer your current debate off course but I do have quite a bit to say about Harvey & Lee.

Just to give Richard a quick heads-up on where I stand; I'm sometimes incredibly impressed with Armstrong's work, sometimes feel completely let down by him (especially when it comes to his footnotes and sources) and I don't complete buy the overall theory.

I would like to transplant the DeVilbiss job application discussion from the EF to here if you are cool with that, Greg. I'm going to PDF the relevant section and e-mail you it if that will help you out?

Anyway, I'll drop by in the next few days and see if we can shake some of the jigsaw pieces out.

Cheers

Lee

Lee, as you can see (and I hope you don't mind, Richard), I have moved this to a dedicated Harvey & Lee forum. If we're going to discuss the H & L evidence, I think it needs to be done in isolation and also be independently evaluated. would also like to have a moderator who can keep things focussed and make decisions like what statements need further evidentiary support etc.

In short, a Devilbiss thread is more than welcome.

Nice to see you here, Lee. I saw your hometown with my own eyes back in '89, on my way to Stranraer for the ferry to Larne. It was pouring rain and not knowing the place I found shelter in a completely overpriced hotel with lion statues outside, might have been called St. George's. Wrote a poem there for a gorgeous young gal I'd met on the train from London. Anyways,

thought I'd let you know I've taken the liberty of contacting a towtruck and brought the McWatters' bus to a place called Jack's Junkyard, out near Sulphur Springs, TX. That old heap has already been crushed up into a cube about a meter wide. The guy at the monument place is chiseling "Marsalis Bus, 1963-2011" as we speak. The owners sure got a lot of miles out of that thing. It'll be at rest 100 paces due west of that big tree in Farmer Bledsoe's field just north of town, in case you ever want to pay your respects.

Now, back to virtual reality and this topic, in a bit...

I have a completely different read on clerk Fred Moore's character, Greg. For sure, he's sold beer to minors in the past. But he's the employee; the responsibility is on manager George Worthington. It seems that this issue has been raised at the store recently, something SA David Barry could easily verify. Probably a Dallas policeman paid the store a visit (and perhaps spoke only with Worthington). But I'd say Moore smartened up, since he could face legal consequences or lose his job. That's why as a precaution he carded "Lee", who looked older than 18, but why take chances?

I can't presume that Moore, confronted with an unannounced visit from an FBI agent (because of a tip from a third party), made up a spur-of-the-moment lie to the agent's face- not even with your postulation that he'd told friends this lie ealier.

I checked into all the David Barry reports I could find, to try to get a better handle on his style, but didn't find anything definitive. Something to help me with his phrase FRED MOORE... advised of the following concerning a report..." There were quite a few reports.

*

On Dec. 2 Barry visited(WCD 6, p. 64; also WCD 205, p. 629): "LEONARD EDWARD HUTCHSISON... owner and manager of Hutch's Super Market... advised of the following concerning a report that LEE HARVEY OSWALD had attempted to cash a check in the amount of $180.00 at the store..."

The source for this visit was (WCD 205, p. 628): "On November 27, 1963, a MRS. GLADYS PETERSON... telephonically advised that an unidentified individual advised her on November 26, 1963, that he had overheard a conversation with a person called HUTCH, another unidentified party, at Hutch's Grocery Store... indicating LEE HARVEY OSWALD frequented Hutch's Grocery Store, and on one recent occasion attempted to cash a $180.00 personal check..."

Barry visited 6 other business establishments nearby (WCD 68-73), but he was canvassing the neighborhood and did not write that he'd received a "report".

He aslo visited (WCD 205, p. 633): MR. CLIFFORD M. SHASTEEN... operator of Clifford's Barber Shop... advised that since the assassination and the appearance of LEE HARVEY OSWALD on television, he had identified OSWALD as an individual who had been appearing at his barber shop..."

But there was no source memo in the WC, HSCA or FBI documents for this; all I could surmise was that Barry coordinated his visit to that Irving neighborhood, having the Shasteen info at some unknown date, the Hutch info on Nov. 27, which had a memo typed up since the visit was 5 days later.

*

On Dec. 3 Barry visited (WCD p. 114): "MRS. A.C. JOHNSON, 1026 North Beckley...was interviewed concerning a report of a long distance ttelephone call originating at Oshkosh, Wisconsin... sometime between 7:30 PM and 10:00 PM on November 15..."

He also visited (WCD 7, p. 116): "MRS. EARLENE ROBERTS... was interviewed concerning a report of a long distance telephone call originating at Oshkosh..."

But I found no source memos in the WC, HSCA or FBI documents for this.

*

On Dec. 7 Barry visited (WCD 205, p. 508): "MR. OLIN BENJAMIN HAMILTON... manager for the AL SEMTNER Drug Depot, was interviewed concerning a report that LEE HARVEY OSWALD had come to see him about a job but had not been hired... on Monday, September 23..."

The source for this was a same-day (WCD 205, p. 507) phone tip to SA Bardwell Odum from Texas Employment Commission interviewer Robert L. Adams, who happened to be confidential FBI informant T-15

And on Dec. 21 Barry visited (WCD 206, p. 35): "ERNIE COLLIER... was interviewed to establish wherabouts of HENRY O. CHENEYWORTH... he had rented a room to CHENEYWORTH for a period of four or five weeks..."

The source for this was (WCD 206, p. 33) a same-day contact by Chenyworth's employer to DPD Deputy Chief M.W. Stephenson, who thence informed SA Emory E. Horton

*

So there didn't seem to be much of a pattern relating David Barry's writing "concerning a report" to whether a memo had been written up. All I could surmise was what we basically figured already, that Barry most likely received a phone tip about the Jiffy store the same day he visited, which was a Saturday, November 30.

In the absence of evidence of such a memo, I can't presume Barry was acting on a tip from a third party. The important data in the phone call would be the location of the Jiffy store, so he could come over. It would be redundant to write "FRED MOORE... advised of the following concerning a report from FRED MOORE...". And to contend that Barry should have written "concerning his report"- he wrote several reports in the objective sense, not using the possessive, and it probably was his habit and style.

A couple of further thoughts over the course of the night:

You're postulating that Fred Moore obtained Oswald's birth data from the newspapers. That likely would have been listed as October 18, 1939.

"As MOORE recalled, the birth date on the license was 1939 and he thought it to have been the 10th of the month..."

If, as he maintained, he had been carding Oswald, the first item he would check is the year, and this is what he recalled exactly correct. Moore inexactly recalled "the 10th of the month"; he makes no mention of an 18; but October is the 10th month, and for Moore to recall a "10th" is consistent with him having taken a passing glance at the calendar month & date on the license.

Secondly, I think he actually did say, "Lee Oswald. A good Jewish name," to Worthington.
The surnames Rosenwald, Greenwald, for example, are fairly common Jewish names.. I don't see it as a stretch that Moore considered Oswald a Jewish name at the time in question.

A name like Rubenstein is more over-the-top, an "overly good" Jewish name. This was probably an incentive to change it to Ruby, so he wouldn't have to take any crap.

So you've got to present compelling evidence in order to reverse the face-value meaning of what's written up in the report, i.e. compelling evidence that Moore was lying.

It isn't enough to isolate this report from all the other data, and postulate this lie because the premise seems absurd. Armstrong made a wham-bang case that there wee two LHOs, and if the plotters had planned all along on framing Oswald for the assassination, they'd have been idiots not to have both LHOs in town that day.

I have a completely different read on clerk Fred Moore's character, Greg. For sure, he's sold beer to minors in the past. But he's the employee; the responsibility is on manager George Worthington. It seems that this issue has been raised at the store recently, something SA David Barry could easily verify. Probably a Dallas policeman paid the store a visit (and perhaps spoke only with Worthington). But I'd say Moore smartened up, since he could face legal consequences or lose his job. That's why as a precaution he carded "Lee", who looked older than 18, but why take chances?

We have no idea what his character was like. All we know about him for certain is that he was a convenience store clerk who had been selling beer to minors. I'm not condemning him for that. My whole point is that in those days it was the norm. Even in the '70s, I was able to buy liquor as a 15 year old. In short, I don't believe they had any trouble over it, or if they did, it was no more than a wrist slap. Look at what the night club owners got away with... the "gentlemen's clubs"... even the cafe's like the Cellar Bar. You are right in saying Barry could have looked into it. And he should have.

But then, maybe he knew it was probably bullshit.

I can't presume that Moore, confronted with an unannounced visit from an FBI agent (because of a tip from a third party), made up a spur-of-the-moment lie to the agent's face- not even with your postulation that he'd told friends this lie ealier.

Then in defending Armstrong's view of this document, you put yourself in the position of having to accept, on face value, every single report received by the FBI.

I checked into all the David Barry reports I could find, to try to get a better handle on his style, but didn't find anything definitive. Something to help me with his phrase FRED MOORE... advised of the following concerning a report..." There were quite a few reports.

Hutchison ...."check on a report..." source: known third party

Shasteen... doesn't have the usual "check on a report" or "advised concerning a report". Instead it states "Shasteen.... advised that..." Skimming his testimony, it becomes clear he is probably differentiated from the others for the simple reason that he had SA Odum as a regular customer. In short, he has mentioned the incident to Odum while cutting Odum's hair and the information was passed on to the agent responsible for checking out reports concerning that area. Incidently, Shasteen also claims to have seen Oswald at Hutch's store which was across the road from his barber shop.

The interviews with Johnson and Roberts concerning a long distance call from Oshkosh falls into yet another category. There is no mention or even hint about the source because it was deliberately being withheld.

Oshkosh doc I know this is an interesting report, but if anyone wants to discuss it, we'll have that discussion in the JFK forum (unless it was cited in H & L)

Hamilton... "concerning a report..." source: known third party

Collier... doesn't count as the purpose of the interview was to locate a third party - not inquire about a tipoff.

So there didn't seem to be much of a pattern relating David Barry's writing "concerning a report" to whether a memo had been written up. All I could surmise was what we basically figured already, that Barry most likely received a phone tip about the Jiffy store the same day he visited, which was a Saturday, November 30.

Sorry Richard, but I think there is a discernible pattern. All the "concerning a report" interviews had a separate report showing who gave the tipoff. The one exception still had a separate document naming the informant, but with that name redacted.

Shasteen's report did not have the "concerning a report" line or anything similar. But I have given the reason why. It came from his own mouth to a customer who happened to be SA Odum.

What we lack an example of is a known case of an anonymous tip. But since Moore does not fit any of the other examples, and a "face value" reading is suggestive of it coming from an anonymous source -- I think that is what the default assumption should be.

In the absence of evidence of such a memo, I can't presume Barry was acting on a tip from a third party. The important data in the phone call would be the location of the Jiffy store, so he could come over. It would be redundant to write "FRED MOORE... advised of the following concerning a report from FRED MOORE...". And to contend that Barry should have written "concerning his report"- he wrote several reports in the objective sense, not using the possessive, and it probably was his habit and style.

It would not be redundant to write, "Fred Moore was interviewed pursuant to information Moore provided telephonicly...." which is the style I seem to recall in other documents when the FBI visited someone due to a phone call from that very person.

And even with a concession that the phone tip came from a third party (which I don't think you've rigorously demonstrated), we're still unsure whether Moore had confided to a friend or relative that he'd carded Oswald on the morning of the 22nd, and this confidant contacted the FBI in his stead.

You haven't demonstrated that Moore was lying to the FBI, and your arguments that he did are rebuttable right off the bat, or at least on the 2nd try. You need to come up with a source memo for this Moore contact that would amplify the possibility that he lied.

We're not getting anywhere and I never expected to change your mind. But I've seen plenty enough of debates like this on other forums that are an energy drain just to read; I've no intention of continuing down this road. Getting at the truth of a matter is not a question of debating skill.

I've presented a defense of John Armstrong's interpretation of the Jiffy store episode and you've presented your opposition, and the reader may decide their own interpretation. As I've said, I'm not swayed one bit by your hypothesis, and you may have the last post regarding this episode.

If we could move on to the related issue of the Oswald license, at your leisure, that might better serve our talents.

Richard Gilbride wrote:And even with a concession that the phone tip came from a third party (which I don't think you've rigorously demonstrated), we're still unsure whether Moore had confided to a friend or relative that he'd carded Oswald on the morning of the 22nd, and this confidant contacted the FBI in his stead.

You haven't demonstrated that Moore was lying to the FBI, and your arguments that he did are rebuttable right off the bat, or at least on the 2nd try. You need to come up with a source memo for this Moore contact that would amplify the possibility that he lied.

We're not getting anywhere and I never expected to change your mind. But I've seen plenty enough of debates like this on other forums that are an energy drain just to read; I've no intention of continuing down this road. Getting at the truth of a matter is not a question of debating skill.

I've presented a defense of John Armstrong's interpretation of the Jiffy store episode and you've presented your opposition, and the reader may decide their own interpretation. As I've said, I'm not swayed one bit by your hypothesis, and you may have the last post regarding this episode.

If we could move on to the related issue of the Oswald license, at your leisure, that might better serve our talents.

Richard, I understand and agree with you about debates like this being draining, and that the truth doesn't always belong to the best debating team. That's part of the reason I want to find a moderator -- someone who can say, "okay guys. Stop there. Here's a summary of the arguments."

(I don't consider myself very good at debates, btw)

That said, I often feel like the atheist who has to constantly deal with the Mormons knocking on the door

But I will gladly call this an at an impasse and move on to the license. More questions then answers there, I suspect.

I feel a bit guilty for wanting to cut short the Fred Moore saga, since I was the one who brought it up, but there didn't seem to be many drops left in that well, and we've presented just about all that can be divined out of it. I envisioned a danger of the discussion degenerating into a long series of "What if... Yeah, but..." and I'd probably lose to William F. Buckley in a debate over whether the sun would come up tomorrow.

Which might bring out my inner Attila the Hun and I like you too much, Greg, to engage in that style of combat. But I should forewarn you that my Oswald license fortress is well-stocked with enough provisions for withstanding a lengthy siege, and equipped with some rather cunning defenses.

Richard Gilbride wrote:I feel a bit guilty for wanting to cut short the Fred Moore saga, since I was the one who brought it up, but there didn't seem to be many drops left in that well, and we've presented just about all that can be divined out of it. I envisioned a danger of the discussion degenerating into a long series of "What if... Yeah, but..." and I'd probably lose to William F. Buckley in a debate over whether the sun would come up tomorrow.

Which might bring out my inner Attila the Hun and I like you too much, Greg, to engage in that style of combat. But I should forewarn you that my Oswald license fortress is well-stocked with enough provisions for withstanding a lengthy siege, and equipped with some rather cunning defenses.

Cool Richard. By the time I'm through with you, you won't even believe there are such things as so called "driver's licenses"

I'm thinking you stayed in the St. Georges Hotel. It's still there but now owned by the Holiday Inn. Liverpool has changed dramatically over the last 15 years.

Quick question regarding the burial of poor Cecil's bus. Where does that leave this segment of Armstrong's work in your opinion? I read Joseph Backes attempt to destroy the Oswald on the bus story in Fair Play magazine and Armstrong went after him with all guns blazing and a complete loss of objectivity. It seems he has a lot invested in that bus journey that didn't happen.

I'm on my way to London for a few days but will certainly start the DeVilbiss thread when I get back home on Sunday.

Hi all,

Lee I've already patted Greg on the back for his good work on the EF regarding the Oswald bus thread and I want to do the same for you. Well done mate.
Just wanted to ask whether any of you guys think it important as to whether Oswald actually boarded with Bledsoe or not? The Devilbiss application in which Bledsoe is a reference would tend to indicate that this may have been likely if legit.
Cheers
Paul

Lee,

Yeah, Joe Backes deserves a lot of credit for proposing that the McWatters bus trip was fiction, and I haven't read his essay about that on the Mary Ferrell site for a couple of years, but recall looking through it a couple of times back then. I did come across the letters/notes/whatnot that he & Armstrong exchanged over this issue; what had sold me on the Armstrong view was his certitude, because of William Whaley's mention of Oswald's ID bracelet, that the cab ride happened and so therefore the bus ride happened.

This issue is a really good example of the "consensus" opinion being wrong; I don't know the politics of it, but I'm sure Joe held out and kept his opinion firm and let it drift into relative obscurity, for someone to catch onto later.

Your recent work about how Fritz learned a couple hours sooner than he could have about a cabbie named Whaley showed me that the cab ride almost certainly didn't happen. And the reality of the bus ride, which by itself always struck me as dodgy (transfer, blast-from-the-past Mrs. Bledsoe), depended on the cab ride.

I've followed that Ed Forum thread and admire the hard work you & Greg have put into it.

*

Today I think that "Harvey" got into that Roger Craig Rambler. I still put "Lee" in the Depository but have little idea how he left.

I also used to think that "Harvey" was at the bus stop outside the rooming house at 1:03, and got a ride directly to the Texas Theater, arriving circa 1:09. But today I'm more disposed to accept exactly Butch Burrough's time estimate of the Oswald arrival there, at 1:00-1:07.

So that bumps up his arrival at the rooming house by about 10 minutes, about a 12:48-12:50 arrival. The same Rambler takes him straight to the Theater. My opinion is that the driver was Lawrence Howard.

And I still think that episode about a police car honking twice while Oswald was inside was disinformation. Earlene Roberts didn't mention it until November 29th, and with a sister like Bertha Cheek, all the mistakes Roberts made about the squad car number, and a tempting- but in the end inconclusive- lead about a DPD car & Ruby calls to Sulphur Springs; this episode associated Oswald with two unknown cops (allegedly in this alleged car) shortly before a cop was killed, and it seems unresolvable, and has had no explanation that stands up, that I know of. So if it was disinformation, it really did its trick.

psellers wrote:Hi all,

Lee I've already patted Greg on the back for his good work on the EF regarding the Oswald bus thread and I want to do the same for you. Well done mate.
Just wanted to ask whether any of you guys think it important as to whether Oswald actually boarded with Bledsoe or not? The Devilbiss application in which Bledsoe is a reference would tend to indicate that this may have been likely if legit.
Cheers
Paul

Thanks, Paul. It was certainly a group effort. My gut instinct the the deVilbiss application goes to trying to paint a picture of Oswald hunting for jobs that lined the parade route. deVilbiss was not far from the Trade Mart on Irving Boulevard and it links quite nicely to the report that was made of the ENCO map that the FBI began looking into. They seemed to treat it as some sort of "death map" as reported in the newspapers on the 24th November. There is something strange about this application form because they didn't end up using it for some reason and the Warren Commission didn't even use it in Oswald's background or history. They also sent it to the FBI to look at parts of the form that appeared to be written in a different hand and we are led to believe that Oswald didn't remember the name of his wife, or the name of his daughter.

The form was eventually relegated to the "not required" pile, even though it, on the surface gave some corroboration to Mary Bledsoe's claims.

What is interesting to me concerning Bledsoe is this. Although she says she came forward on the afternoon of the assassination, and she completed an affidavit on the 23rd of November. Therefore, if she was on the bus where she said she was on the bus, AND she was Oswald's former landlady then the DPD knew about her quite early on. Yet, on the 24th of November, after Oswald has been killed, Henry Wade held a press conference and outlined the evidence that they had against the "defendant." Here is what he said concerning Oswald's departure from Dealey Plaza...

Wade: The next we hear of him is on a bus, where he got on a bus at Lamar Street; told the bus driver the President had been shot. The President [he] told a lady who - all this was verified by statements - told a lady on the bus that the President had been shot. He said, how'd he know. He said that a man back there there had told him. He went back to talk to him. The defendant said, "Yes, he's been shot," and laughed very loud.
Q. This was to a lady.
Wade. A lady. He then--the bus--he asked the driver to stop, got off at a stop, and caught a taxi cab driver.

No mention of a landlady. No mention of Mary Bledsoe. No mention of a crazy eyed Oswald will holes in his sleeves. They allegedly knew of her existence since the afternoon of the assassination and she still isn't "out there." Wade is still referring to the woman who got on at Vermont over in Oak Cliff.

I don't believe for a second he ever roomed at her property and if you read her testimony concerning what happened when he moved in, well that's just all over the place, obviously rehearsed but she can't keep up and gets lost in her own lies.

In my opinion, Bledsoe morphed from being the Vermont lady with no association to Oswald whatsoever who happened to see Roy Milton Jones laughing on the bus, put 2+2 together, came up with 5, got her son to alert the DPD, which then resulted in them finding McWatters, the DPD realised it gave them a way out of Roger Craig's "allegations", started the process of molding McWatters into the story, manufactured a transfer using the transfers from the Piedmomy bus that they pulled McWatters off and used his punch, talked him through hoops for the next six hours, introduced the manufactured transfer to him, got him to identify it, then morphed Mary into a landlady, moved her from Oak Cliff to Elm Street, and then hammered the square peg into a round hole.

Lee

Lee David Farley wrote:

psellers wrote:Hi all,

Lee I've already patted Greg on the back for his good work on the EF regarding the Oswald bus thread and I want to do the same for you. Well done mate.
Just wanted to ask whether any of you guys think it important as to whether Oswald actually boarded with Bledsoe or not? The Devilbiss application in which Bledsoe is a reference would tend to indicate that this may have been likely if legit.
Cheers
Paul

Thanks, Paul. It was certainly a group effort. My gut instinct the the deVilbiss application goes to trying to paint a picture of Oswald hunting for jobs that lined the parade route. deVilbiss was not far from the Trade Mart on Irving Boulevard and it links quite nicely to the report that was made of the ENCO map that the FBI began looking into. They seemed to treat it as some sort of "death map" as reported in the newspapers on the 24th November. There is something strange about this application form because they didn't end up using it for some reason and the Warren Commission didn't even use it in Oswald's background or history. They also sent it to the FBI to look at parts of the form that appeared to be written in a different hand and we are led to believe that Oswald didn't remember the name of his wife, or the name of his daughter.

The form was eventually relegated to the "not required" pile, even though it, on the surface gave some corroboration to Mary Bledsoe's claims.

What is interesting to me concerning Bledsoe is this. Although she says she came forward on the afternoon of the assassination, and she completed an affidavit on the 23rd of November. Therefore, if she was on the bus where she said she was on the bus, AND she was Oswald's former landlady then the DPD knew about her quite early on. Yet, on the 24th of November, after Oswald has been killed, Henry Wade held a press conference and outlined the evidence that they had against the "defendant." Here is what he said concerning Oswald's departure from Dealey Plaza...

Wade: The next we hear of him is on a bus, where he got on a bus at Lamar Street; told the bus driver the President had been shot. The President [he] told a lady who - all this was verified by statements - told a lady on the bus that the President had been shot. He said, how'd he know. He said that a man back there there had told him. He went back to talk to him. The defendant said, "Yes, he's been shot," and laughed very loud.
Q. This was to a lady.
Wade. A lady. He then--the bus--he asked the driver to stop, got off at a stop, and caught a taxi cab driver.

No mention of a landlady. No mention of Mary Bledsoe. No mention of a crazy eyed Oswald will holes in his sleeves. They allegedly knew of her existence since the afternoon of the assassination and she still isn't "out there." Wade is still referring to the woman who got on at Vermont over in Oak Cliff.

I don't believe for a second he ever roomed at her property and if you read her testimony concerning what happened when he moved in, well that's just all over the place, obviously rehearsed but she can't keep up and gets lost in her own lies.

In my opinion, Bledsoe morphed from being the Vermont lady with no association to Oswald whatsoever who happened to see Roy Milton Jones laughing on the bus, put 2+2 together, came up with 5, got her son to alert the DPD, which then resulted in them finding McWatters, the DPD realised it gave them a way out of Roger Craig's "allegations", started the process of molding McWatters into the story, manufactured a transfer using the transfers from the Piedmomy bus that they pulled McWatters off and used his punch, talked him through hoops for the next six hours, introduced the manufactured transfer to him, got him to identify it, then morphed Mary into a landlady, moved her from Oak Cliff to Elm Street, and then hammered the square peg into a round hole.

Lee

Thanks for your reply Lee.
It is definitely odd that the doc was not used. Maybe it was done to avoid it being scrutinised. The less for Mary to discuss the better
I also suspect Oswald didn't board with Bledsoe. Wade would have been alerted to it and I can't see why he would withhold that information if it aided Oswald's identification. From my tortureous reading of her testimony it is clear she doesn't relate to Oswald in any shape or form.
I've been following you guys on the Ed Forum and its obvious some guys don't appreciate what you boys are doing. My advice (encouragement really) is keep at it.This bus and taxi story has been planted into the official narrative and most have been afraid to dare challenge it. As you guys can see it falls apart quite deconstructively.
Once again good work.
Paul