and now for something completely different...

Greg Doudna has started a thread at the 13 Inch Head Hangout he titled The coveralls-wearing customer in Shasteen's barbershop in Irving: was that Oswald or a mistaken identification?

Do I need to ask why Greg has started this thread at a forum where I cannot directly take him to task? 

Added to that, the post is an example of a classic Gish Gallop - almost an essential method of arguments from bias, which in Greg's case involves his reflexive defense of Ruth  Paine. His problem with Shasteen is this: if he is right and Oswald had his hair cut there, and I am right and his young companion was Ruth's Russian student, Bill Hootkins, then Ruth is clearly a liar - a situation that Greg finds intolerable. 

It caused such a storm in Greg's mind when first coming across it that he foolishly tried to claim the young man was Buell Frazier. 

This current attempt to circumvent reality involves claiming that it is all just



Greg Starts off by quoting Roy Lewis 

“He [Oswald] never wanted to get a haircut. We would tease him about it because hair would be growing down his neck. We told him a week or two before the assassination that we were going to throw him down and cut it ourselves, but he just smiled. But he was a good worker and I don’t remember his getting into arguments with anybody.” 

--Roy Lewis, Texas School Book Depository employee, coworker with Oswald (in Sneed, No More Silence, 86)

From Shasteen's testimony

Mr. SHASTEEN. The fact is, he never did want his hair cut--he always wanted it to look like it was about a week old when he cut it and he got a haircut about every 2 weeks, 


In other words, Oswald got it cut, but not to look like it had just been cut. He wanted it to look like it was about a week old. Or put another, left a bit longer than most men would.

 There is a belief that a certain customer in Shasteen’s barbershop in Irving, Texas, who nearly always wore oversized coveralls, was Oswald, and that a boy who Shasteen said was associated with that customer and had told him, Shasteen, that he was 14 years old, was Ruth Paine’s 15-year old Russian student in Dallas, the future famous actor William Hootkins. Greg Parker originated the argument for the Hootkins identification

The age of the kid and the incorrect claim that he was 14, was addressed in the debate here when I posted

What actually appears to have happened is that Shasteen initially could not recall if the boy said he was 14 or 15 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142&relPageId=833 
(accorded to Bert Glover, his employee, Shasteen told him the boy was 14 or 15[/url]). By the time of his Warren Commission testimony, he seems to have settled on 14. It was not the only number he got wrong.  
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2295-the-latest-paine-apologist-greg-doudna?highlight=Paine

The reason he settled on 14 was because the FBI settled on 14. Probably because they knew it was wrong.

Greg Parker’s 15-year-old Hootkins is an improvement on the Wesley Frazier idea* in that it reduces the discrepancy in age to only a year,

[*Since the above note is not clear as to whose idea is being discussed regarding Frazier, note that it belongs to Greg D and mot me.]  

No. It does not "reduce" anything. What Shasteen told Burt Glover was correct. The boy either told him he was 14 or he told him he was 15. Shasteen simply could not recall which it was. You are taking the FBI preference for calling him a 14 year old - and Shasteen's acceptance of that from the FBI, as if Shasteen only ever said the kid was 14. Glover says otherwise.

although at the price of having to suppose (if the scenario were correct) two round-trips of Ruth Paine from Irving to Dallas and back each time, to pick up Hootkins and ferry him to Irving, where Ruth would hand him and her car over to Oswald to drive himself and Hootkins 0.8 miles to the barbershop where Oswald would get a haircut, then Ruth drive Hootkins back to Dallas and Ruth return again, all without either Ruth Paine or Hootkins telling Hootkins’ mother this was happening. Is it realistic that Hootkins’ mother would not know her son was making trips to Irving? Is it realistic that Ruth Paine, a mother herself, would not inform another mother that she was taking her son to another city for a few hours? Hootkins’ mother knew nothing of Hootkins going into Irving with Ruth Paine (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145811#relPageId=34).

Hmmm. Count the number of logical fallacies involved in the above - particularly the rhetorical appeal to Greg's idea of common sense. 

Meanwhile here are the facts: The FBI report on the interview with Mrs Hootkins does not state she knew nothing about Bill going to Irving. It only states that Ruth Paine was his Russian instructor at St Marks for the Summer term and that following the summer term, he started having private instruction from Ruth and that Ruth would pick him up on Saturday and take him to St Mark's for these lessons. I believe the summer term would have finshed around mid-August - which means Ruth probably did pick him up and have the lessons at St Mark's initially. This would change after Ruth picked up Marina in late Septemeber and brought her back to Irving. From that time, I believe Ruth started bringing Hoot back to Irving instead of taking him to St Marks. The chance to have a native speaker involved in the lessons would have been too hard to resist.

The assistant principle at St Mark's told Hosty that as at the date of the interview ON OCTOBER 31 , that Ruth's priviate tuition (following her summer course) was taking place at the homes of the students. Although plural was used - there was only one - Hoots.

So according to the school itself, even if the private lessons started out as being conducted at St Mark''s, they were most certainly NOT being conducted there by Oct 31.   YEt Mrs Hootkins continued to believe that was the case. Who was being deceived and who was the deceiver - and what was the purpose of the deceit?

END PART ONE.

Greg Doudna wrote:Paine confirmed to the FBI her tutoring of Hootkins took place on Saturdays in Dallas, that she never lent Oswald her car to drive by himself, and that she knew of no time Lee got a haircut in Irving. 

Yet in support of the above, Greg gives the following summary and link.

Greg Doudna wrote:“Mrs. Ruth Paine … advised that she does not recall Lee Harvey Oswald going for a haircut on a weekend during October or November, 1963, and that she does not recall the location of any barbershop where Oswald ever obtained a haircut. Mrs. Paine has previously advised, as reflected on pages 635 and 636 of the report of Special Agent Robert P. Gemberling, dated December 23, 1963, that she did not know of any boy about 14 years of age with whom Oswald was ever associated in the neighborhood and that she had never allowed Oswald to take her car anywhere by himself.” (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=832)

But neither the summary nor the link reflect Ruth stating that the tutoring of Hootkins took place on Saturdays in Dallas. 

As for the rest of it... as I have repeatedly said, including an extensive coverage of the topic in our last Shasteen debate, Ruth was being technically truthful when she said she did not know of any boy about 14 years of age with whom Oswald was ever associated in the neighborhood - because as we know, Hootkins was 15, not 14, and did not live in irving. That she never allowed Oswald to take her car anywhere by himself was also technically true. But by having Bill Hootkins with him, he was not "by himself".  As I have also posted in the past, the Quaker dictum of "no lying" is circumvented in devious ways so that they are at least telling a tecnhnical truth, but still avoiding telling the actual truth being sought.  Ruth was masterful at it.

Greg Doudna wrote:Apart from both Hootkins’ mother and Ruth Paine told the FBI they knew nothing of Hootkins going to Irving or with Lee to a barbershop, [my insert: note that these claims by Greg are total fabrications. Mrs Hootkins never mentions anything about Irving and RP did not say Hootkins never went to a barbershop with Lee - she said she knew of no 14 year old in Irving that Lee associated with. Again - Hootkins was 15 and lived in Dallas. Greg should cease making up quotes for his witnesses] the Hootkins identification depends on two prior assumptions: that the coveralls-wearing customer of Shasteen was Oswald and that the 14-year-old boy was associated with the coveralls-wearing customer. The fundamental problem with these assumptions is the information concerning the coveralls-wearing customer makes clear he was someone other than Oswald.

Code for Greg D is going to cherry-pick, contort and hammer until he makes his square pegs go in those round holes..

No one disputes that there were many mistaken "Oswald sightings" reported by witnesses following the assassination. The question goes to cases which must be examined one by one: which claims of seeing Oswald were real and which in error. In the case of Shasteen’s barbershop, all three barbers had cut the hair of a certain customer at least once over a two- to four-month period prior to the assassination. 

Shasteen had cut his hair twice and Buddy Law once. Burt Glover was clearly recalling someone else based on his description of the customer he gave.

Buddy Law only worked for Shasteen part-time and quit sometime after discussing the Oswald hair-cuts with Shasteen. Almost like he could see the shit-storm coming and did not want to be involved.

Shasteen had testified that the time Law had cut Oswald's hair was on a Friday evening getting close to closing time. Shasteen was getting ready to leave early for a football game and Oswald had wanted to know where he was going. Shasteen adds that it was just brushed off as Oswald indicating that he wanted Shasteen to do his hair. 

From Shasteen's testimony....when the boy in the middle chair cut his hair. It was on Friday night and it was about 5 or 10 minutes to 7, the best I remember. Now, why I am saying this is the fact that I was going to a football game. My shop has a door in the back and then there is a storage room on one side and a restroom on the other, but when you open the two doors, you see, there is just a narrow place and it kind of makes it private back there, and I change clothes back there, and I had the door but, as he came in the front door, I started out--I went out the back. The next morning this boy that works in the middle chair--he didn't go to the football game, but the boy that works there, and I slipped off and went to the football game---business had kind of slowed up about that time. But anyhow, he really was inquisitive as to where I went. He wanted to know where I was going and what I was going to do--he asked thi s guy cutting his hair. I You see, he didn't think nothing about it then. He just thought maybe he wanted me to cut his hair and that is the only time there.

Oswald was not given to small talk, so Greg D later in his article, makes a big deal out of this episode. But this was not "small talk". There was a real purpose behind it. Oswald wanted to maintain the same barber for his haircut. Simple as that.

Buddy told the FBI on 9/9/64, that he had no recollection of ever seeing Lee Oswald in the shop, or of the specific episode described by Shasteen where he (Law) cut Oswald's hair. 

He does say that Shasteen had told him that Oswald had been a customer on at least 3 occasions. This gives Shasteen credibility in that it shows he was recalling all of this right after the assassination. 

As for Law not recalling... maybe he did, maybe he didn't - but either way, he clearly was trying to distance himself from it. There is no particular reason he should remember. Law was just there two days a week. It was a bit of extra money on top of his regular job, so Law had no interst or investment in in the work or the shop - unlike Shasteen who  owned the business and judging from his testimony, was EXTREMELY invested in recalling his customers. 

The period of time involved in Oswald being a customer, Greg gives as 2 to 4 months.

But that is not cotrrect. Straight after the assassination, Shasteen told Law that Oswald had been in the shop "at least three times". 

Or put another way, three times that Shasteen could recall, while leaving the door open to the possibility that it was more than that. 

But it wasn't. It was three times.

From Shasteen's testimony:

Mr. JENNER. Now, do you recall saying at that time that you had a recollection that he had been at your shop for the purpose of obtaining a haircut for the past 2 or 3 months?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. And when was the occasion in point of time that this business respecting the yellow shoes occurred--how far prior to that?
Mr. SHASTEEN. In other words on the 8th there, he got a haircut on a Friday night.
Mr. JENNER. Yes.
Mr. SHASTEEN. And I would say it was 2 or 3 weeks before that on Saturday morning, because I was the only one in the shop and he was the first one there that morning.
Mr. JENNER. On reflection, you fix it as 2 to 3 weeks on a Saturday morning prior to November 8?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Right.
Mr. JENNER. That would take us ,back to--that would be either the 25th of October or the 18th of October?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Possibly; yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. Could it have been 2 to 3 months prior?
Mr. SHASTEEN. I don't believe so, not when he had the shoes on, the house shoes on that morning, because the thing that made me remember that was the fact that it seemed like I'd found something he agreed with me on. He even smiled about this; you know, he had a good look on his face when I complimented his house shoes.

The evidence suggests that Oswald had his hair cut every two or three weeks.

The ONLY date that Shasteen was able to nail down precisely was the 8th of November because that was the night of the football match.

That means Oswald's next cut would have possibly been due the weekend of the assassaintion. The one prior to the 8th would hve been on or about October 18 or on or about Oct 25. If it was the 18th,  that puts the first cut on or about Oct 4 - the day Oswald returned to Dallas/Irving.  It all fits Oswold's timeline like a fucking glove. 

Despite the ease of calculating these dates and matching them to Oswald's timeline like any proper investigation would, the FBI and WC kept pushing for Shasteen to place Oswald's first visit back into the summer - making it impossible for it be Oswald - the false outcome they clearly sought and which Greg D is clearly determined to embrace. 

END OF PART TWO

Hi GregP. Maybe look at it that I set forth how it looks to me, and you and anyone else can continue to see it your way. I gave the best links I knew to your earlier presentation or argument, and I will add a notification and link to your rejoinder here at first opportunity (meaning after someone else comments so it does not look like I am bumping my own post--at this moment it has sunk to mid-page 2 without a comment, either people are too dazzled by my logic to respond or eyes are glazed over at its length, one or the other). After you finish your series here I will notify and give a link even if no one has commented by then. I wish you were on the Education Forum able to comment there directly.  

Meanwhile I will be available here to answer any questions you may wish to ask me. 

I have a couple of questions for you. It is OK with me to wait until you complete your rejoinder series before answering if you prefer, but anyway here they are:

1. The incident with the kid occurred on or about Mon Nov 18. On Dec 2, which was only two weeks later Shasteen told the FBI he had asked the kid his age on that occasion and the kid had said "fourteen". Not fifteen. (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95676#relPageId=38) Shasteen told the FBI that early. You cite Glover almost a year later telling the FBI what Glover remembered Shasteen told him, "14 or 15 years old". Glover told the FBI that on Sept 9, 1964 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=833). Do I understand you correctly that you are saying Shasteen had been told by the kid the age was 15 and Shasteen told Glover that but by Dec 2 Shasteen was in witting collusion with the FBI only 8 days after the assassination to dishonestly change the age to 14? Do you think the FBI agent on Dec 2 knew that and was involved in suborning the knowing false statement (a federal crime at the time, I believe) from Shasteen when that FBI agent took that report? Just trying to understand you here.

2. Is it your position that Ruth Paine was religiously observant as a Quaker to not testify technically falsely, in accord with what you say is a belief or practice of Quakers, and that Ruth Paine never did testify technically falsely to the Warren Commission? 

That's all from me for now. Just one more minor point: you have altered a quotation from me, third quotation from top of your Part 1, "...Wesley Frazier (that I promulgated previously) in that it reduces the discrepancy..." -- but the words "that I promulgated previously" are added, not mine. (Not that it is inaccurate, just not my words in the quote marks) Please correct that? Thanks.

Hi GregP. Maybe look at it that I set forth how it looks to me, and you and anyone else can continue to see it your way. 

How about looking at it without filters? 

I gave the best links I knew to your earlier presentation or argument, and I will add a notification and link to your rejoinder here at first opportunity (meaning after someone else comments so it does not look like I am bumping my own post

All good. Thank you.

-at this moment it has sunk to mid-page 2 without a comment, either people are too dazzled by my logic to respond or eyes are glazed over at its length, one or the other). After you finish your series here I will notify and give a link even if no one has commented by then. 

Hate to break it to you, but it's the latter. Which means any of the former it may actually contain is not going to be read.

Suggest long posts should be broken up as I've dome here, or else use lots of bold subheadings as in newspaper and magazine stories. It works wonders psychologically, in getting more readers, which is why journalists do it.

Meanwhile I will be available here to answer any questions you may wish to ask me. 

I don't have any questions for you. You are nothing, if not transparent.

I have a couple of questions for you. It is OK with me to wait until you complete your rejoinder series before answering if you prefer, but anyway here they are:

No worries.

1. The incident with the kid occurred on or about Mon Nov 18. On Dec 2, which was only two weeks later Shasteen told the FBI he had asked the kid his age on that occasion and the kid had said "fourteen". Not fifteen. (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95676#relPageId=38) Shasteen told the FBI that early. You cite Glover almost a year later telling the FBI what Glover remembered Shasteen told him, "14 or 15 years old". Glover told the FBI that on Sept 9, 1964 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=833). Do I understand you correctly that you are saying Shasteen had been told by the kid the age was 15 and Shasteen told Glover that but by Dec 2 Shasteen was in witting collusion with the FBI only 8 days after the assassination to dishonestly change the age to 14? Do you think the FBI agent on Dec 2 knew that and was involved in suborning the knowing false statement (a federal crime at the time, I believe) from Shasteen when that FBI agent took that report? Just trying to understand you here.

It doesn't matter when information was given to the FBI.

Shasteen and Glover spoke in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. In that discussion, Shasteen recalled that the kid either said he was 14 or 15, he could not recall which. A couple of weeks later, when Shasteen was formerly interviewed by the FBI, the FBI would have had a pretty good idea of who the kid was. They had known about Hootkins and Ruth since late October when Hosty investigated Ruth. Shasteen had a past relationship with the FBI and most likely held agents in very high regard as his patriotic duty. If the interviewing agent kept asking about the 14 year old, Shasteen would just fall into line with that since he couldn't recall. And what would it matter to him anyway,if it was recorded as 14 or 15? He just went along with it as a not very important detail.

2. Is it your position that Ruth Paine was religiously observant as a Quaker to not testify technically falsely, in accord with what you say is a belief or practice of Quakers, and that Ruth Paine never did testify technically falsely to the Warren Commission? 

Trying to wedge me, Greg?

I can't prove beyond all doubt she lied about anything. What I can prove is that she used the following tactic in avoiding totally honest answers on more than one occasion. I posted the following for you previously, without a response. Except maybe for some waffle about witch-hunts.

Bold highlighting is mine

Quakers and Affirming
August 6th, 2011
quakerism
Traditionally quakers have not been willing to swear that they will tell the truth. The right to affirm instead of swearing was introduced in england in 1695, originally as an exception only for quakers. The united states constitution requires in several places an "oath or affirmation", placing them on equal footing. Growing up, I learned that quakers do not swear and instead we affirmed. Then in court last week I was asked to swear to give "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". I didn't think, and swore, but now that I do think, I'm not sure quakers should be objecting to swearing any more.


When you swear to do something, you're saying you will do it. This can be interpreted as a religously backed oath or as a sincere promise. [1] Either way, quakers object because they believe they're supposed to tell the truth at all times, and so they "do not swear, but we 'affirm' that we are being honest, as always". [2] The word of a quaker, however, has lost a lot of its reputation. People no longer trust arbitrary statements by most quakers more than those same statements made by non-quakers. This is because quakers have, over time, become less serious about telling the truth. Quakers have become much more integrated into society than they used to be, and now mostly have accepted the prevailing norms on truth telling. Which isn't to say that quakers lie all the time any more than most people lie, but that requesting promises not to lie from quakers makes sense.


Further, you're being asked to tell the "whole truth". Quakers who take not lying very seriously have traditionally still occasionally used not telling the whole truth as a way around that strictness. There are stories about people giving intentionally misleading but not technically false responses to questions like "why would you think that?" and non quakers warning each other to force a quaker into giving a straight answer and not to be misdirected by apparent denials that aren't actually making any claim. So even if you do believe that you should be always telling the truth and nothing but the truth, I'm not sure about the whole truth. https://www.jefftk.com/p/quakers-and-affirming

Here is what I think of Ruth, just so there is no misunderstanding

1. Up until she appeared at the Shaw trial, she had not been subjected to cross-examination and her words were left unopposed thanks to the credulousness of the commission.

2. Her memory of the phone call between herself and Michael belies other evidence.

3. Her memory of the phone call from the TEC belies other evidence.

4. Her story about Oswald giving them the phone number to N Beckley in case Marina went into labor, but then neglecting to tell them they should ask for "Mr Lee" lacks internal logic and is most likely self-serving.

5. Her willingness to lie on legal documents is demonstrated via her divorce papers which accuse Michael of cruelly mistreating her her in various ways.  Unless that was true, of course? I don't believe for a second it was. She made the standard statements needed to be granted a divorce. All lies. 

6. Any insistence that her religion makes her incapable of lying is shown to be self-serving by the above.

7. Despite claims that she was a Quaker Charity Queen Par Excellence! she displayed a clear lack of empathy or charity when she failed to help Oswald secure legal assistance. This also showed she had little sympathy also for the core values and beliefs of the ACLU.

8. Claims that the Quaker Charity Queen took Marina in due to Marina's desperate need, solely because that is the type of woman Ruth was, are undermined  by the fact that there is not a single act of charity in all of the many records concerning her past up until then. She was an evangelical Quaker, as proven by her claim that God called her to learn Russian. Evangelical Quakers do not see charity as their business because it was not for God. So if charity is ruled out as the reason for Ruth housing Marina, what was the real reason?

9. Claims that Oswald scrounged on her over weekends is belied by her own words - to wit - that it was great to have him around doing all the little chores that needed doing like fixing a door - you know - stuff that the ENGINEER, Mike Paine never got around to doing.

10. Her pants are highly combustible.


I question the need to even continue this. You quote Roy Lewis stating that Oswald never liked getting his hair cut. 

As I showed - Shasteen said exactly the same thing about his customer.

And as I previously showed, Shasteen testified that "Oswald had thick black hairy arms" 

Which again accurately describes Oswald

A crop from an autopsy photo




I have shown that there were only 3 visits in total by Oswald.

1st on or about Oct 4
2nd on or about Oct 18
3rd on Nov 8

I have shown that there was some deceit used in where exactly Hootkins was having his private  lessons.

I have shown that Hootkins matched Shasteen's description perfectly.

I have shown that Ruth really did not rule out Hootkins as accompanying Lee to the barbers. She only ruled out any local 14 year old. She also never ruled out Oswald driving her car with an accomanying passenger. She only ruled him out as driving it solo. 

In short, the evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor.

But hey, if you really want to keep questioning it, I will keep responding.

Please continue, because the most important part is in the second half of mine in which I show the differences between Shasteen's customer and Oswald. The 14- (or 15-)year-old's identity is irrelevant if the prior premise is incorrect that Shasteen's customer was Oswald. The coveralls... the hair cut so short it would not comb down flat... the hair growing on the back of Oswald's neck not consistent with a haircut @2 weeks (a barber will always trim and groom the back of the neck!) ... the black-headed versus medium-brown hair of Oswald... the yellow shoes... the trips across the border into Mexico to shop... the rudeness of the customer told by Shasteen of how he crowded Glover out of the way at the mirror... etc. Why assume Shasteen's ID of the coveralls-wearing customer as Oswald was correct in the first place, with all of these discrepancies from what is known of Oswald? 

Question #3: Shasteen said when he returned to the shop late afternoon Nov 22 from his failed attempt to go by Ruth Paine's house to take another look at the station wagon, he said he and the other barbers talked about a particular single customer, the "Oswald customer", the one Shasteen said wore coveralls all the time and he thought drove Ruth Paine's station wagon. The barbers compared notes; according to Shasteen they all remembered the same guy. Do I understand you correctly that you are saying Glover meant a different customer whom he also thought was Oswald--two claimed Oswald-customer identifications (one of Shasteen, and one of Glover)? Whom Shasteen had seen in the shop for at least three haircuts, and Glover saw his "Oswald" also three times, and neither Shasteen nor Glover noticed the other "Oswald" looked like Oswald? Do I have you right on that?

Surely Shasteen and Glover thought they were talking about the same guy? But you are saying they were different? Let us assume for the moment you are right, two of them. Glover says he cut his "Oswald"'s (Glover Oswald's) hair once but saw him get haircuts from other barbers two other times not by Glover. Meanwhile, Shasteen says he saw Glover cut his (Shasteen's) "Oswald"'s (the Shasteen Oswald's) hair once and, by your count, Shasteen's Oswald also got two other haircuts not by Glover. 

Isn't that a bit of a coincidence in numbers you are postulating these two doppelgangers (sorry for trigger word), two sets of Glover 1 out of 3, two who look like Oswald, each got three haircuts, each one from Glover? You know what I think? I think that's a stretch, made necessary only because you must have Oswald in that barbershop and that is the only way to work it for an Oswald five-weeks time window. 

Now for the question: you have not one, but two claimed Oswalds each getting three haircuts, each getting one from Glover, in the same time frame. OK, its a two-Oswalds barbershop now, no mere boring single-Oswald barbershop. This is getting more interesting. The question: of these two claimed Oswalds each with three haircuts apiece in the identical several-weeks time frame, how many of those claimed Oswalds were Oswald?

There are four possible answers: there were two real Oswalds in that barbershop (don't anybody tell the Harvey and Lee people). There was one (Shasteen's but not Glover's). There was one (Glover's but not Shasteens). Neither.

Assuming your answer is either the second or third, can you explain your reasoning for knowing which one is the correct identification but not the other? I mean, both Shasteen and Glover each claimed to identify Oswald the same way--saw Oswald on TV, talked with each other, agreed "yep, he was that customer".

And if Glover got his right and Shasteen got his wrong--sorry, if SHASTEEN (that very very credible witness) got his right but Glover got his wrong--how come Glover never noticed the real Oswald (Shasteen's)? How come neither of these barbers noticed two Oswalds in and out of the shop instead of a mere one? 

If you are going to admit that one of these two barbers was mistaken in thinking a customer who got three haircuts was Oswald, why not both mistaken? What is the positive argument that one of those two was Oswald in the first place, and what is the positive argument determining which one and not the other?

On the other hand, if both were mistaken, that removes the need to artificially bifurcate or split up the one "Oswald" customer into two in the first place, since he never was Oswald in the first place. Then it becomes one claimed-Oswald customer (not two), which was simply mistaken by two not one barbers, all problems removed. By your own reasoning you admit it is possible for a barber in Shasteen's barbershop to have a mistaken Oswald identification, because that is essential to your argument. And so if it is possible in one case, it becomes possible in both cases, but if that is so in both cases there is no need to say they were two instead of one, one mistaken identification.

Please continue, because the most important part is in the second half of mine in which I show the differences between Shasteen's customer and Oswald. 

You say the customer was "rude" while the real Oswald was not.

RUDENESS
You cite statements made to the HSCA by Shasteen as evidence of the customer's rudeness. Shasteen does mention the same episode to the WC, btw.  

The real Oswald lacked social awareness and graces, typical of those on the spectrum.  This leads to occasional scenes such as described by Shasteen. Oswald would have been oblivious to any "rudeness" exhibited. He was repeatedly referred to as "aloof" by others - which is often a polite way of calling someone "rude" as is the word used by Mrs De Mohrenschilt to describe him - "disagreeable". Shasten himself also described his customer as "disgruntled". 

Your citation of this incident is something of a stretch as evidence in your favor.

YELLOW HOUSE SHOES
Your next cite is the yellow shoes the customer wore on one occasion.

It is true that there appears to be no sign of these among his possessions. But that means little. They were very cheap shoes and may have simply worn out before the assassination. That tends to happen with cheap crap bought from flea markets. 

REGULAR TRIPS TO MEXICO
You cite the customer as telling Shasteen that he purchased the shoes in Mexico and that he would buy Shasteen a pair next time he was there. Your cite again appears to have come from the HSCA.

But that is not quite what Shasteen said to the Warren Commission.

Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; slip-ons, only they were a little heavy--they were just a little heavier than just a common house shoe, and I admired them and I said, "Them looks expensive," and he said, "They are not."
"He said, "I gave a dollar and a half for them." I said, "My goodness, where did you get a pair of house shoes for a dollar and a half?" And he said, "Down in Old Mexico."
Mr. JENNER. Down in Old Mexico?
Mr. SHASTEEN. And I said, "Man, I'd like to have a pair of them because I have to wear a shoe built up," you see and they were heavy enough that I could build that shoe up and he said, "Well, I'll get you a pair the next time I'm down there," and that is the only time he ever was nice and polite-in the conversation, any time anything would come up--anybody else would talk to him, he was just disgruntled.

Definition of Old Mexico - includes parts of the United States annexed from Mexico.  And that includes modern day Houston - which in fact has businesses utilizing the name "OLD MEXICO". I believe Houston was where Oswald was when the authorities have him in Mexico City.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Mexico#:~:text=Old%20Mexico%20most%20commonly%20refers%20to%20the%20country%20of%20Mexico.

Alternatively, he had been to Tijuana while stationed at Santa Ana. He may have bought them there and left them with Robert among other possessions which he picked up again on his return from the Soviet Union. 

Your choosing to cite HSCA interviews that differ in detail to what he had said previously is noted. The changes however are just a product of how memories get confused, deteriorate and change over time, polluted as it were by other inputs.

CHANGES TO THE STORY ABOUT THE BOY
Including the number of times he was in the shop. Not sure what your point is here. None of the changes are significant, and you yourself admit the boy was in the shop and did make a scene.

You cite the HSCA interview as evidence that the boy was only there once - indicating no known connection to the "coverall" wearing customer. Obviously this is not a reliable memory since the whole reason for Shasteen going to the FBI was that very connection between the customer and the boy. Moreover, I don't think Shasteen even says what you think he says. He had a peculiar way of expressing himself, sometimes starting a sentence with one line of thought, but ending it with a different thought. This is probably the case again, since you have him also telling the HSCA that the customer toild the kid to "shut up". Not only does that strongly suggest a connection, it also strongly suggests a confused memory since we know that the customer was not present on the day the kid mouthed off. 

In short, you are using obviously confused and old memories to to try and bolster your claims.

THE AGE OF THE BOY
You cite Shasteen's earliest statement about this as being in his FBI interview of 12/2/63. But that is just not true. His earliest statement about the age of the boy was to Bert Glover when he told Glover he could not recall if the boy advised he was 14 or 15.

THE COLOR OF THE CAR
Shasteen correctly stated that Ruth's car was a 55 Chev 4 door station wagon with a green or blue body and a white top.

That's a pretty close description any way you cut it and after realizing Oswald may have been his customer, he drove to get another look at the car, but could not get within 4 blocks because of the police and media. He knew then that he was right about it being Oswald. 

That he said it had a white top is hardly damning evidence that he was wrong when every single other detail was correct.

YOUR QUESTION

Question #3: Shasteen said when he returned to the shop late afternoon Nov 22 from his failed attempt to go by Ruth Paine's house to take another look at the station wagon, he said he and the other barbers talked about a particular single customer, the "Oswald customer", the one Shasteen said wore coveralls all the time and he thought drove Ruth Paine's station wagon. The barbers compared notes; according to Shasteen they all remembered the same guy. Do I understand you correctly that you are saying Glover meant a different customer whom he also thought was Oswald--two claimed Oswald-customer identifications (one of Shasteen, and one of Glover)? Whom Shasteen had seen in the shop for at least three haircuts, and Glover saw his "Oswald" also three times, and neither Shasteen nor Glover noticed the other "Oswald" looked like Oswald? Do I have you right on that?

No, you don't have any of it right.

Shasteen did change his story a number of times, but as I've said, he had a peculiar way of changing thoughts midsentence, making the sentence somewhat hard to decipher. He also gives every impression that his answers are sometimes unfiltered. He is just spitballing as a way of "thinking out loud". I think such habits would be easy for a barber to develop as they try and maintain chit chat with the customer who may or may not be responding and may or may not even be paying any attention. Over time, it could almost sound like a conversation with yourself where accuracy of details is not paramount - why? Because YOU know what you mean!

Glover possibly felt pressured to remember a  person he didn't really remember, and plucked a random customer out of his memory to be supportive of his boss. It is his description that is the issue. 5' 11" maybe as old as 35, 140 pounds and clean shaven but with a black beard.  That is not Oswald and is not the person Shasteen is talking about. Whether or not this bearded customer was in the shop at the save time as Oswald on any given occasion is not known. 

Buddy Law simple had no recollection at all.

Zero significance can be placed on either man's lack of recall. They were employees and not invested in memorizing customers as Shasteen clearly was.

I am not going to address the rest of what you've written because it gives every appearance of someone jumping the shark. I would prefer it if you stepped back, took a deep breath, reflected on what you said, and your motives behind it - and then came back and tried again (if you must).

As for your overall approach... you seem to want it both ways - using discrepancies and changes in stories in the various statements as proof that it is all wrong, while also clinging to any statements that you think will support you.

This approach is a direct result of a conflict of interest causing you to start with the conclusion that Ruth never lied and therefore Shasteen is wrong about everything. There is no point in trying to deny this, Greg. You have gone from Buell Frazier until that was killed, to a random father and son which also died as you gave birth to it, and now this. It reeks of desperation to kill this however you can.

A recap of why Shasteen's story has legs

His description of the customer is consistent with Oswald - up to and including his apparent sullen presentation, the fact that he didn't really want a hair cut, and his hairy arms. The army issue coveralls were described as too big. But that indicates that they belonged to ex-army vet Mike Paine who was taller than Lee and probably left the coveralls in the garage to wear while tinkering.

His description of the car is consistent with it being Ruth's car, despite one minor detail being in error.

The description of the kid is consitent with it being the one kid who had access to Oswald, via Ruth - Bill Hootkins. The description is so accurate as to exclude it being any other kid in Irving or Dallas, imho as no 15 year old boy in the greater Dallas region who had a wide face and blondish hair would have had the ability to spout what this kid came out with. 

Neither the kid nor the customer returned after the assassination.

The one date of the customer being in the shop that can be nailed down is the 8th of November. Given that cuts were every 2 to 3 weeks, and that was the last one of three, it fits with the cuts commencing at the time Oswald returned to Dallas

Lies were told about where Hootkins was having his lessons. His mother believed they were taking place at the school while the school believed they were taking place at Hootkins' own home.

That package of evidence is not beaten by relying on the dual and polar opposite approaches that the witness statements in toto are both contradictory and accurate. Nor does either approach beat the above evidence on its own.

Greg youve made this too easy for GD.
Heck, a cave man could follow it.
No cave men were available for comment.
But never the less, I enjoyed this more than less.
Cheers!!!

Well GregP you address points, I give you credit for that, but I sure don't see it the same way. Glover says in Sept 1964 Shasteen told him the kid was 14 or 15, I read that as Glover was uncertain ten months later which it was Shasteen had told him. You are taking that 10-months later statement of Glover as if he was quoting ipsissima verba, Shasteen expressing uncertainty on Nov 22 (or within a few days), re the kid's age. You know that Shasteen's FBI statement (2 wks after assassination), and his WC testimony were 100% consistent and clear, always 14 years old, no uncertainty, no 15. While your interpretation is possible it sure is not the most likely interpretation, unless you have prior knowledge on other grounds the kid was 15 (begging the question).  

You also are aware that Glover told the FBI he had seen what he thought was Oswald having three haircuts in the shop, one of which Glover had given "Oswald". Glover gave a physical description of the man he saw, which you quote and correctly note it somewhat differs from the real Oswald in height and age estimate. You say that is not the same customer Shasteen identified as Oswald, the Shasteen's usually-coveralls-wearing customer. 

But try to follow me here. We agree there is only a five-weeks time frame ending Nov 8, if Shasteen's customer is Oswald, in which no more than three haircuts can fit. You say those three are 2 of Shasteen and 1 of Law (on Nov . That would agree with Law saying Shasteen had told him three haircuts (total). But it does not agree with Shasteen's WC testimony, where Shasteen repeatedly said he had personally, he himself, cut his "Oswald" customer's hair three times, then Law on Nov 8, and Glover at least once, making 5 minimum. (Shasteen WC: "I think I cut his hair three or four times"; "I know of three times that I cut it"; I personally know of five times he was in there").

But can you really get the total number of haircuts down to 3? In addition to however many of Shasteen himself and the one of Law, there is also Shasteen's claim that he saw one of Glover. Shasteen in his WC testimony told of one time in which the customer (Shasteen's "Oswald") after having his hair cut by Glover in the front chair, had moved to the mirror of Law's middle chair and crowded Law in the middle chair (Shasteen observing this from the third chair). Do you accept this as a Shasteen sighting of his customer? If so, that is a Glover haircut of the customer Shasteen thought was Oswald. Do you accept that Shasteen saw Glover cut Shasteen's customer on the occasion of this "crowding" incident? 

It seems to me whichever way you answer this produces a problem for your construction. If you accept that Shasteen DID see his customer, Oswald by your interpretation, have his hair cut by Glover on the "crowding" occasion, that adds one more haircut to the Law of Nov 8 and the two that you say Shasteen did, making four total, too many to be Oswald. 

But if you deny that Shasteen saw his customer on the "crowding" occasion--even though Shasteen says he did--then there is a different problem. Because it was that occasion that Shasteen said was one of the times he saw the 14-yr-old present with his customer, on that occasion getting his hair cut from Glover. Do you think the 14-yr-old was there that time, or not? With Oswald on that occasion, or not? 

To make all this into Oswald and Hootkins is way too contrived and ad hoc. I think Glover's physical description of his "Oswald" and Shasteen's "Oswald" were the same guy and it was a mistaken identification, i.e. the dude often wearing the oversized coveralls with black-appearing hair too short to be combed down flat was not Oswald. The similar-colored Chevy wagon to Ruth Paine's is coincidence of a common type of car, and I do think Shasteen saw a white top on his customer's Chevy wagon as he said he did (i.e. not Ruth Paine's car). 

Too many haircuts to fit into five weeks. So many mistaken Oswald identification reports after the assassination, this just one more. No verification from any witness that Hootkins of Dallas was ever all the way over in Irving in Ruth Paine's house or with Oswald apart from the reconstructed story itself.

Big difference between a customer getting an intentional shag-look hair trim biweekly and Oswald known for needing a haircut including hair growing on the back of his neck. Most men go 3-6 weeks between haircuts, someone poor like Oswald could go 2 months (where it will look like a man needs a haircut or a trim on the back of the neck as everyone described Oswald on Nov 22), not @2 weeks. Shasteen's customer was some working man who wore coveralls on his job, was particular about his hair and his look, wasn't Oswald. 

I looked up how often most men go between haircuts and found this (compare Shasteen's description of his customer):

"I have had the shortest return clients that required 1/4" off every 2 weeks which they pretty much always look the same to the longest average return client being 2 months requiring 1" off. Most average mens short cuts are 4-6 weeks requiring 1/2"-3/4" off. The shorter the style, the more often it needs to be cut to keep it clean." (https://www.quora.com/How-long-should-men-with-short-hair-go-between-haircuts?share=1)

In other words, the only reason Shasteen's customer got haircuts so frequently--every 2 weeks--was because his short-cropped hair, cut so close that the hair would not comb down flat easily as Shasteen described--required cut that frequently to maintain that look. That does not apply to Oswald who had no such style of hair or look of that nature to maintain. There is no reason why Oswald would need or want to go to a barbershop @2 weeks.

OSWALD
When we got back to the shop, then, we began to talk about it. All three of- the barbers in there have cut his hair, but I cut it more, I guess, than the rest of them did. I think the boy on the front chair cut it once [Bert Glover] and the boy in the middle chair cut it a couple of times [Buddy Law], but I think I cut his hair three or four times. I don't know just exactly…


Law cut his hair on Nov 8.

TOTAL CUTS ACCORDING TO ABOVE = 6 or 7.
-----------------------

HOOTKINS
Glover cut his hair on Monday Nov 18 or Tuesday Nov 19 although he claimed not to recall any comments made by the kid. In fact, the FBI record of interview indicates if he did recall cutting the kids hair at all. Shasteen does say Glover was high strung. He certainly gives every indication he did not want to be involved.   

 Mr. SHASTEEN … he [the kid] has been in there as much as two or three times with him, but he never did say nothing until about 3 or 4 days before this incident happened [and he was on his own]


OTHER SIGHTINGS OF OSWALD BY SHASTEEN
Mr. SHASTEEN… I remember seeing him, you know, other than just going in the grocery store across the street, Mr. Hutchison's food market, and I was down at the drugstore one night, down at Williamsburg's and he was in there.
Mr. JENNER. Williamsburg's--that's in Irving?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; it's down on Rock Island and Rogers Road. And, why I remembered seeing him in there, I knew I couldn't understand his wife, and that was before--- I believe it was before she had her baby. The best I remember she was pregnant.

It was inadvertently corroborated by Ruth Paine that Oswald did sometimes go to that drugstore

 Mrs. PAINE - He went with my children to buy some popsicles while I was teaching a student, so I was not at home that time.

Marina was pregnant when seen with Lee at the drugstore. She gave birth on Sunday October 20. Ruth’s private Russian lessons were allegedly always on Saturdays. So, the day Oswald took Ruth’s kids to the drugstore would have to have been the 19^th, the 12^th or the 5^th. I think we can rule out the 19^th.

This sighting by Shasteen proves he knew who Oswald was and was not mistaking him doe a different customer.

I believe the 5^th makes most sense for the time discussed by Ruth. The 12^th was Columbus Day and although not an official holiday in Texas, may still have been celebrated or observed privately.

The 5th is the day after Oswald arrives from his travels. Ruth had been teaching Russian at St Marks during the Summer and continued giving private lessons to Bill Hootkins Saturday evenings at the school.

The 5th or the 12^th (if Columbus Day did not cause a cancellation) then would be the last lesson at the school. Future lessons would be Ruth‘s home in Irving.

Oswald gets his haircut on the morning of the 5^th alone.

On the evening of the 5^th or the 12^th, he either takes Ruth’s kids to the drugstore for candy while Ruth is at St. Mark’s or he takes Marina - or all of them - or there were multiple times he visited the drugstore. 

FREQUENCY OF OSWALD CUTS  
Mr. SHASTEEN. The fact is, he never did want his hair cut--he always wanted it to look like it was about a week old when he cut it and he got a haircut about every 2 weeks, and I don't think he ever went over 2 weeks--he either got a haircut on Friday night or Saturday morning, and in running that back through my mind, and I thought about it then and I have since.

Mr. SHASTEEN. In other words on the 8th there, he got a haircut on a Friday night.
Mr. JENNER. Yes.
Mr. SHASTEEN. And I would say it was 2 or 3 weeks before that on Saturday morning, because I was the only one in the shop and he was the first one there that morning.
Mr. JENNER. On reflection, you fix it as 2 to 3 weeks on a Saturday morning prior to November 8?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Right.
Mr. JENNER. That would take us ,back to--that would be either the 25th of October or the 18th of October?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Possibly; yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. Could it have been 2 to 3 months prior?
Mr. SHASTEEN. I don't believe so

Mr. JENNER. How many haircuts did he get----
Mr. SHASTEEN. Well----
Mr. JENNER. Six or seven, is that what you said?
Mr. SHASTEEN. No; he could have possibly gotten seven haircuts but I think about six haircuts is what he got. It could have possibly been five.
I know, personally three times I cut his hair and I know that the front guy cut his hair one time, Mr. Glover, and Mr. Law cut his hair one time and Buddy--he might have cut it one other time and if he did that would've made six.

Let’s take stock here. The customer had cuts every 2 or sometimes 3-week intervals. If the last cut was on November 8, and we take it as every 2 weeks, he had cuts on Oct 25, Oct 11, Sept 27, Sept 13, and Aug 30 for a total of 6 cuts. If that is what happened, then it cannot be Oswald.

But that is not what happened according to Shasteen. He was specifically asked if the cuts went back 2 or 3 months – because Jenner realized that had to be the case if there had been 5 to 7 cuts at 2- or 3-week intervals. Shasteen who was obviously no Hootkins when it came to math because he seems oblivious to the problem, nevertheless denied that the cuts went back that far.

Mr. JENNER. Could it have been 2 to 3 months prior?
Mr. SHASTEEN. I don't believe so


And here, where he gives a more qualified denial of the cuts going back into the Summer.

Mr. JENNER. I'm just trying to figure out this 22d and the 8th--did this hair-cutting go back into the summer?
Mr. SHASTEEN. You know, that's--like I say, that's a saying--to point back, and you know, just to say that that is the first time this guy has come in here I just can't pinpoint the first time. In other words, it has been hard and I have tried to think, especially after I got that call yesterday evening to come over here. I tried to run that back through my mind and I wouldn't say when was the first time he was in there and of course we have talked about it--me and the barbers, and it seemed to me like there was a dead spot in there. Some time maybe a month or 6 weeks that we might not have saw him, be the first time I cut his hair, but the last three haircuts--it seemed to me like he was pretty regular.

For some reason, Shasteen seems to want to recall an earlier cut than the 3 regular ones but can’t pin it down – most likely because he has vague memories of one or more somewhat similar customers from the summer. One possibility is that the coveralls belonged to Mike Paine and Paine wore them for a cut once in the Summer.

There were only 3 cuts with Oswald.

The 5^th of October & the 18^th or 19^th of October – both with Shasteen,

and 

the 8^th of November with Buddy Law – though with Oswald wanting to maintain the same barber as previous – Shasteen (thus questioning Shasteen as to where he was going)

On reflection, I do not think the rude combing of hair incident was Oswald. It was most likely the black bearded customer that Glover described to the FBI as Oswald. Thus, it was wrongly added to the tally by Shasteen.

Lee was due again on Nov 22. As you pointed out, this was noted by Dallas police.

Hootkins was there with Oswald on 18^th or 19^th of October and again on the 8^th of November. And he was there alone on November 18 or 19 making a scene.

OSWALD’S HAIR STYLE
You have made a case based on the description of this style and frequency.  
You say

“Big difference between a customer getting an intentional shag-look hair trim biweekly and Oswald known for needing a haircut including hair growing on the back of his neck. Most men go 3-6 weeks between haircuts, someone poor like Oswald could go 2 months (where it will look like a man needs a haircut or a trim on the back of the neck as everyone described Oswald on Nov 22), not @2 weeks. Shasteen's customer was some working man who wore coveralls on his job, was particular about his hair and his look, wasn't Oswald. “

The consensus here  was that in the 1950 and early 60s =, men had cuts every 2 to 3 weeks. That matches the pattern of this particular customer – or Oswald as his name was.


 To your point about the length the length of the customers hair being “too short” to lay flat. That is not what Shasteeen said:

MR. SHASTEREN.  …You might attempt to ask me what kind of haircut he wore.
Mr. JENNER. All right, go ahead.
Mr. SHASTEEN. You could just name it, because he didn't wear it long and he didn't wear it short. It was almost short enough to stand up but it was too long to stand up. He just wore a rough shod haircut because many I thought, "Boy, you sure ought to let this grow out up here where it will lay down and comb nice or either cut it off where it would stand up." But like I say, he wanted that little bit taken off. I tell you what he did do---He did try. to make the barber work all he could. He seemed like he wanted you to do all the work and naturally, that's another thing, I have a bad attitude towards some people. If a guy doesn't ask me to do much, I'll do a right smart, but if he thinks I owe him something, he won't get any extras.

ON TOP - NOT LONG – NOT SHORT. Sounds like Oswald to me.

Elsewhere in testimony, Shasteen talks about Oswald asking for a 16^th or 32^nd off.

Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; we have talked about that--I don't care if we put it on the record--it's the truth with us barbers--we have laughed about it, but he's not the only one that said, "Take a third of it," you know. We laughed about his saying, "Take a 32d," or he would say, "Take a 16th off of the top," or something. I do remember him saying them things.

THE AGE OF THE BOY
You also disagree with my interpretation of the FBI record of interview with Glover, which states inter alia
that Shasteen had "related that this person [Oswald] had been there with a 14 or 15 year old boy..." Nowhere does it say that Glover is the one who doesnot recall exactly what Shasteen said about the age. A plain reading of the way it is written, indicates that the failure of memory about the exact age was with Shasteen. You may well be right, but only if you read more into it than what it actually says.

Lastly, I have tried to respond to each of your points. If I have missed any, it was not intentional.

On the other hand, you appear to be very selective about what you address.

You have not addressed the conflict pointed out about where the lessons were being held.

You have not addressed the point about the coveralls most likely belonging to Mike Paine

You have not addressed that in his WC testimony, Shasteen said the yellow shoes came from OLD MEXICO - as opposed to MEXICO.

You have not addressed the fact that Shasteen talked about the cusomer having hairy arms - which Oswald did.

You have not addressed how precisely the decsription of the kid matches Hootkins - right down to the fact that he was not a local. Insread, you keep zeroing in on the age issue and then support that by adding meaning to the FBI report on Glover.

You also cite the police saying Oswald needed a haircut as if that somehow supports your case when in fact, it suppports mine. According to the regular schedule of cuts, he was in fact due for a "16th off" cut that weekend.

Now you also need to address the sighting at the drugstore.

You further claimed that the person described by Glover was the same person described by Shasteen, but neglect to recall or state that Glover described the man as wearing a black beard and was too tall and old in the first place.

The customer was Oswald and the Kid was Hookins. No amount of using confused and old memories of the barbers is going to trump all the evidence compiled. But keep trying, if you must.

Where does Doudna posit Lee got trims... Any possibilities or did combing for leads come up short? (not too short tho)
Any other barbers cut in or is this shear coincidence.
Well this has been fun.
I gotta run... with scissors

The odd and specific requests to cut a small amount off the top and keep a very particular style, not wanting his hair cut too short, and wanting to maintain the same barber also squares perfectly with the kind of preferences and behavior one would expect from a 24 year old who was losing his hair. Source: myself. I was balding at 23-24 and before I started shaving my head I used to do that kind of shit all the time.

JFK_FNG wrote:The odd and specific requests to cut a small amount off the top and keep a very particular style, not wanting his hair cut too short, and wanting to maintain the same barber also squares perfectly with the kind of preferences and behavior one would expect from a 24 year old who was losing his hair. Source: myself. I was balding at 23-24 and before I started shaving my head I used to do that kind of shit all the time.

And Shasteen predicted his customer would have been bald by 40 (although I suspect antibiotics for roundworm infections were partly to blame in Oswald's case).

Mr. SHASTEEN. To me, he didn't have a full head of hair. It was rather short and thin around here by the temples and the way his hair lies back, he would have been bald if he had been 40 years old.
 

OTHER SIGHTINGS OF OSWALD BY SHASTEEN
Mr. SHASTEEN… I remember seeing him, you know, other than just going in the grocery store across the street, Mr. Hutchison's food market, and I was down at the drugstore one night, down at Williamsburg's and he was in there.
Mr. JENNER. Williamsburg's--that's in Irving?
Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; it's down on Rock Island and Rogers Road. And, why I remembered seeing him in there, I knew I couldn't understand his wife, and that was before--- I believe it was before she had her baby. The best I remember she was pregnant.

It was inadvertently corroborated by Ruth Paine that Oswald did sometimes go to that drugstore

 Mrs. PAINE - He went with my children to buy some popsicles while I was teaching a student, so I was not at home that time.

Marina was pregnant when seen with Lee at the drugstore. She gave birth on Sunday October 20. Ruth’s private Russian lessons were allegedly always on Saturdays. So, the day Oswald took Ruth’s kids to the drugstore would have to have been the 19^th, the 12^th or the 5^th. I think we can rule out the 19^th.

This sighting by Shasteen proves he knew who Oswald was and was not mistaking him doe a different customer.

I believe the 5^th makes most sense for the time discussed by Ruth. The 12^th was Columbus Day and although not an official holiday in Texas, may still have been celebrated or observed privately.

The 5th is the day after Oswald arrives from his travels. Ruth had been teaching Russian at St Marks during the Summer and continued giving private lessons to Bill Hootkins Saturday evenings at the school.

The 5th or the 12^th (if Columbus Day did not cause a cancellation) then would be the last lesson at the school. Future lessons would be Ruth‘s home in Irving.

This is interesting GregP and I think you are right in fixing the dating either Oct 5th or 12th. In checking the location of Rock Island and Rogers on a map I see it looks about a half mile from W. 5th St. and the Ruth Paine house, so would be within walking distance for Lee, Marina, and children to walk to get the children popsickles.

I believe Shasteen did cross paths with them there but that his only reliable identification memory was pregnant Marina. Although Lee was with Marina on that occasion I believe Shasteen was mistaken in identification of the man with Marina on that occasion as the customer of Shasteen in his barbershop. Shasteen is not the most reliable witness. I believe that was a conclusion of Shasteen retroactively, not a reliable stand-alone witness testimony as to the identification of the man. 

(I am having technical difficulty in being unable to figure how to "quote" further in the colored offset quotes so change here to bolds instead.)

GP: "You have not addressed the conflict pointed out about where the lessons were being held."

The lessons were held at St. Mark's according to secretary to the Head Master Mrs. Jean Evans: "Mrs. Evans further advised it is her understanding that Mrs. Paine tutors at least one student from St. Mark's in the Russian language, giving him extra assistance on Saturday, using the St. Mark's school facilities. Mrs. Evans advised that this one student is Bill Hootkins..." That is Mrs. Evans to the FBI on March 24, 1964. The present tense indicates it was ongoing at the time of that FBI interview.

Ruth Paine testified in agreement with this that she drove to Dallas on Saturdays to tutor Hootkins.

Mrs. Seymour Hootkins, Bill's mother, FBI interview March 18, 1964, "advised each Saturday afternoon Mrs. Paine picks her son up and takes him to St. Mark's School where teaching facilities are readily available. She stated she does not consider herself a personal friend of Ruth Paine, as her association with her has been strictly on the basis of her son's studying Russian with her." (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145811#relPageId=34).

That again is consistent (again note present tense): Saturdays, Dallas, at the St. Mark's campus. Mrs. Hootkins has no knowledge of her son being taken by Ruth Paine to Irving and back for a Russian lesson on a Friday Nov 8, nor of her son being taken by Ruth Paine (for another Russian lesson?) on a Monday Nov 18, both school days. If she knew she would have said so. 

Now you have been saying something about a headmaster denying the St. Mark's campus location and saying that the tutoring was being held at Mrs. Hootkins' home, in contradiction. I am unable to confirm that from any document I can find. I can find nothing at all to contradict what both Mrs. Hootkins and Ruth say above: Saturdays, location of tutoring at St. Mark's.

I see CE 1809 refers to an interview of Hosty on Oct 31, 1963 of Edward Oviatt, Assistant Headmaster of St. Mark's, but nothing about Ruth Paine tutoring Hootkins anywhere other than at St. Mark's.

"On October 31, 1963, Mr. Edward T. Oviatt, Assistant Headmaster, St. Marks School of Texas, Dallas, Texas, advised that Mrs. Paine was a satisfactory employee and was loyal to this country. He considered her to be a stable individual. Mr. Oviatt advised that Mrs. Paine was employed on a part-time basis as a teacher of the Russian language. He also learned in a conversation with Mrs. Paine that she had a Russian-born woman living with her, and she was assisting this woman in view of the fact that she had recently had a new baby and she, Mrs. Paine, was improving her Russian speaking ability by having this Russian-speaking person in her house." (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145598#relPageId=14)

This is a reference to Marina being in Irving, but no reference to Hootkins. Where are you getting that Ruth Paine was denied further use of the campus to meet with Bill Hootkins after Oct 1963? Where else would the tutoring have happened? Are you saying Ruth Paine secretly took Hootkins in to Irving every week thereafter for his Russian lesson, on into 1964? And Marina never said a word of this even when asked if she knew anything about a 14-year old (close enough to Hootkins' age for Marina to have said something)?

By your construction the only Friday Hootkins was in Shasteen's barbershop was the 6:55 p.m. on Fri Nov 8 at about closing time when nobody was in the shop except Law and Shasteen slipping out the back door. No other customers, no other barbers. And that only time you have Hootkins seen in that barbershop with "Oswald" was for the sole purpose, you say, of establishing a connection between Hootkins and "Oswald" so that when the kid made the scene ("Oswald" not present) all those witnesses would associate Hootkins with Oswald. 

Please cite a reference to Ruth tutoring Hootkins other than at St. Mark's, and other than on Saturdays? 

GP: "You have not addressed the point about the coveralls most likely belonging to Mike Paine."

Since there is no evidence any coveralls of Michael Paine existed, there is nothing "most likely" about it. I realize what you are saying, that it is a possible explanation for the coveralls looking oversized or too large for Shasteen's customer wearing them, and you connect that to Michael Paine who was over 6 feet tall. The weak point is in explaining how it makes sense that Lee would change into Michael Paine's coveralls to go to a barbershop, but on no other occasion and for no other reason so far as is known. Nobody else ever saw Oswald or Michael Paine in coveralls. No coveralls in any photos of the garage.

GP: "You have not addressed that in his WC testimony, Shasteen said the yellow shoes came from OLD MEXICO - as opposed to MEXICO."

Plenty of contemporary references show "Old Mexico" was synonymous for "Mexico". In Shasteen's HSCA testimony Shasteen refers to the same incident and calls it "Mexico" where he has his "Oswald" telling him the yellow shoes were bought for such a cheap price. And doesn't the cheap price sound like over the border cheaper in Mexico?

GP: "You have not addressed the fact that Shasteen talked about the cus[t]omer having hairy arms - which Oswald did."

Well you showed a photo, but the photo is not in color and there is no support from witnesses (to my knowledge) remarking on Oswald having hairy arms with black hair. Shasteen noticed that about his customer, but nobody noticed that about Oswald, is the point. 

GP: "You have not addressed how precisely the description of the kid matches Hootkins - right down to the fact that he was not a local. Instead, you keep zeroing in on the age issue and then support that by adding meaning to the FBI report on Glover."

In fact I don't see a particularly striking match in physical description beyond "maybe, could be" in a sense that would apply to a few tens of thousands of similarly aged teenagers in Dallas or Irving, but have not made a point of it in the present discussion because it is all irrelevant and moot if Shasteen's customer was not Oswald.

To be specific, Shasteen said the kid's hair color was brown. But a relative or family member (apparently), or whoever it was, someone with firsthand knowledge, wrote you that Hootkins' hair was instead "reddish", which I read as this person who knew Hootkins was saying Hootkins was a redhead. As I recall you responded something about the hair of brown-haired people can look reddish at times. But Shasteen said brown. If Hootkins' hair was really brown why would this person who knew Hootkins object to inform you that his hair was instead "reddish". 

Shasteen told the FBI within two weeks of the assassination that he had asked the kid his age and the kid in Nov 1963 had told him, answered Shasteen, according to Shasteen, that his age was fourteen. Whereas Hootkins was fifteen. You say the FBI massaged what Shasteen said in that report, or that Shasteen perhaps wanting to be helpful himself fudged the age by a year to be cooperative with FBI suggestion. 

You then cite Glover interviewed by the FBI ten months later and Glover says Shasteen told him of the boy 14 or 15 years old. You take that as literal words of Shasteen from ten months earlier, in which Shasteen himself was not sure of the kid's age, and Shasteen therefore was not truthful when Shasteen told the FBI two weeks after the event that the he had asked the kid and the kid had told him that his age was fourteen. Incidentally, if neither Glover nor Shasteen knew for sure the kid's age but Shasteen was guessing from the beginning, then there is no positive match with Hootkins' age.

Shasteen said the kid looked strong, broad shouldered, husky. In other words, football player type. Shasteen specifically said he did not mean overweight. You connect that physical description to Hootkins who in his high school photo looks a bit on the big side. Here you and I have a difference in interpretation. With all respect for Hootkins' brilliance in intellect, his high school photo does not look to me like a football player type or athlete. He looks like a yount man with a potential weight problem, a bit on the heavy side, not a football player type, not the husky strong type described by Shasteen. He looks like that which Shasteen specifically said he was not meaning in describing the kid in his shop. 

On not being local, Shasteen did not know that, simply concluded it in that he did not recognize him to be a local. More likely, a local kid he just did not know (perhaps from a different school in Irving). That the kid was driven to Shasteen's shop by some non-Oswald adult driving a non-Ruth-Paine vehicle on a Monday or Tuesday weekday (per Shasteen's testimony on all three of those details) suggests pretty strongly that the kid and the family that brought him were in the area, just that Shasteen didn't know them.

Incidentally, I don't think you have ever explained your interpretation of the non-station wagon, non-Ruth Paine vehicle, and adult driving that car, who was not Shasteen's customer, who brought the kid to Shasteen's shop, dropped him off out front, on the occasion of the "scene", according to Shasteen's WC testimony. Who do you suppose that non-Oswald person was who dropped the kid off in front of the shop driving a sedan? Does that not sound like some family in Irving?  

On the kid in Shasteen's shop being intelligent and with an attitude--true of many kids, almost as common as dirt in some circles. As you have it this was some elaborate setup to associate Oswald (based on the kid's association with Oswald set up by that one-time 6:55 p.m. visit to the shop at closing time with only a single barber left in the shop, no other customers, and that single barber who didn't remember when later asked) . . . to have Oswald associated with communism in that indirect way. You have this whole elaborate charade planned involving all those logistics of secret covert conveyances of Hootkins by Ruth to Irving et al, in order to set up the kid mouthing off in the barbershop. But the kid mouthing off occurred after there was a political discussion already underway among a few of the men in the shop, according to Shasteen. The kid did not start or create that discussion. According to Shasteen, at first the kid just listened. Then the kid spoke up, and there was Shasteen's reaction and the scene. 

I'm not sure how compatible this is with the idea that it was all an elaborately planned scene. It sounds to me more unplanned and spontaneous, not scripted. 

Notice even in Shasteen's description of the incident there is no mention of Cuba. No mention of Castro. No mention of Oswald. No mention even of the word communism (that is Shasteen's interpretation of things like one-world dictator governing and sharing of wealth which also, for what its worth, could be right-wing populist or national-socialist ideology; does the one-world rule under a single ruler sound obviously communistic? But this is all coming through Shasteen's filter. Though I agree the redistribution of wealth, the criticism of Shasteen for profiteering off his other barbers, and later in Shasteen's HSCA version the equal rights for blacks, does sound left not right politically.) 

The kid not returning again--he never was a regular customer to begin with and after the incident of "scene" and learning how much of a reactionary Shasteen it would not be surprising that the kid would not have any interest in returning again, and if he was associated with Shasteen's customer, if say that was his father, and the kid told of the barbershop discussion at home, that could account for the father not coming back either. Which since that was the same week of the assassination would account for neither the kid nor the customer darkening the doors of Shasteen's shop again after the assassination, but not because of the assassination.

This is a case where some weak coincidences, which really are not particularly striking, became the raw material for a mistaken or false identification, a "false positive". What shows it is mistaken or a false positive is so many things that do not agree with Oswald and the improbabilities required to have the reconstructed scenario be true.

GP: "You also cite the police saying Oswald needed a haircut as if that somehow supports your case when in fact, it suppports mine. According to the regular schedule of cuts, he was in fact due for a "16th off" cut that weekend."

To the contrary. The references to Oswald looking in need of a haircut--that means looking scruffy on the neck above all else--come independently from two coworkers of Oswald at TSBD, and independently from FBI physical description, and from Fritz of DPD. That is four independent sources. A man who had his hair cut two weeks earlier will simply not be scruffy on the neck or look like he needs a haircut that way like all the observers who saw Oswald said he looked that way. This single point of people seeing Oswald scruffy in the neck, needing a haircut, is stand-alone evidence that that customer of Shasteen was not the real Oswald. There is no barber in America who is going to not groom a customer's hair back of the neck when giving a haircut. Leaving the back of his neck looking unshaven and scruffy was not what that customer's haircuts were about when the customer wanted only a "16th" or "32nd" taken from off the top or sides every 2 weeks. 

Scruffy hair on a neck of a man means it has been more than 2 weeks since that man's last haircut. This is just fact. 

GP: "Now you also need to address the sighting at the drugstore."

See above.

GP: "You further claimed that the person described by Glover was the same person described by Shasteen, but neglect to recall or state that Glover described the man as wearing a black beard and was too tall and old in the first place."

Glover did not say the man had a beard. He said the man was clean-shaven but had a black beard if it were to grow out further. This is consistent with Shasteen saying his customer's hair would be seen by people as black. No inconsistency there.

Oswald's hair however was called in FBI description "medium brown", not black. That is what is inconsistent with both Shasteen's and Glover's customer. I don't think Shasteen gave a height or age estimate for his customer. 

However it does not matter whether Glover was talking of the same customer as Shasteen (even though it is pretty obvious to me that they were, given that Glover thought his customer was the same "Oswald" Shasteen was talking about--how many "Oswald" lookalikes do you suppose there were in that barbershop?). The issue is whether, given preponderance of all the evidence, Shasteen's customer's was correctly or incorrectly identified by Shasteen as Oswald.

There is no positive evidence putting Hootkins of Dallas in Irving nor positive evidence or plausibility that Shasteen was correct in his claim that Oswald was in his barbershop. There is no need for such an elaborate barbershop conspiracy, such an elaborate mini-conspiracy which (in your scenario) was covered up from the beginning to the present day by all with knowledge of it such as Marina and all members of Hootkins' family, let alone both Paines and FBI agents and involving subordination of perjury of multiple persons under oath, in which it is supposed witnesses were willing to willfully commit perjury under oath upon request, and never a single leak from any of those citizens in all the years since. I don't buy it. It is not as if this barbershop conspiracy is essential to anything, or anything is lost without it. To me it is a side show, unnecessary, and factually incorrect.

On the matter of the claim of an alleged Friends practice to give misleading answers by means of telling technical truth deceptively.

While this does not materially affect the Shasteen barbershop analysis I would like to take a moment to address this because it has come up again. You think there is a custom or practice among Friends of, so to speak, giving false or misleading answers by means of tricky telling of literal truth, and that some of Ruth Paine's answers can be understood or explained in light of that Friends' custom or practice.

The issue of whether Ruth Paine did such in accord with this alleged Quaker practice can be set aside because there is no credible evidence of such custom or practice among Friends that I ever heard of and I think I know whereof I speak on this, nor standard reference work or reputable source on Friends beliefs and practice and history that has that. I have been involved with Friends Meetings since my 20s, quite a number of meetings in various cities over the years. I come from a long line of ancestors on my father's side who were part of Conservative Friends of eastern Ohio, which is the most conservative branch of North American Friends (to this day they wear only black and white and speak "thee" and "thou"). Though I do not claim to know or to have read everything, I have read extensively of the major Quaker works and Quaker history. In the 1980s I wrote a magazine article entitled "Return to Quaker Roots" which can be seen on my page at academia.edu. I have academic background in history of religion and have taught courses in religious studies at the undergraduate college level. I have never heard of this Quaker custom or practice or belief that you cite.  

But you don't need to believe me simply because I say that as native testimony. The way to know what religious bodies or traditions believe is not so hard--there is no mystery about how to find out--there are standard reference works on library shelves, scholarly and popular studies, good-quality books and studies written, academic journal articles, written by historians of religion and scholars of religious studies, both insiders and outsiders, giving accurate description of Quaker beliefs and practices just as there exist such reference works on any historic religion. It is not acceptable to cite a single blog which makes a hearsay claim, with no footnote or specific reference, and run with it. If that Quaker practice exists or did exist, there should be a real footnote, a real standard reference work referring to it, a real journal article or encyclopedia article or some other credible written source discussing it and referring to it. The blog post you cite gives no such footnote. As recently as last night I attempted to check again, everywhere I could find online, to find some credible source which could tell of such a Quaker practice or belief or custom, in the past if not now--to see if perhaps I might have missed something, but came up with nothing. You should, just as clean method, find a credible solid footnote from a credible source on this before being so quick to believe and claim it, because as it stands you are promoting an unsubstantiated claim. You have not shown evidence it is true, and at this point I am pretty sure you will not be able to find it verified in any credible primary source.

For example there is this page in a "QuakerWiki" on what Friends call the "Testimony of Integrity" (truth-telling): https://quaker.fandom.com/wiki/Testimony_of_Integrity https://quaker.fandom.com/wiki/Testimony_of_Integrity. There it is said (this is Friends' self-understanding): "The Testimony of Integrity is not simply telling the truth. Rather it is applying ultimate truth to each situation. For example, Friends (Quakers) do not believe that one should trick others by making statements that are technically true but misleading."


Sometimes insiders' representations to themselves and others of their beliefs may not be the same as how outsiders see it (emic versus etic issues, insider vs. outsider point of view). Is there an outsider perception that Friends, as a culture or tradition or as a body of people, have a tendency or whatever do that? Well, find and give a credible citation if so. I cannot find anything of that nature. The blog post you quote is not such because it is hearsay not primary, it gives no credible citation. If that blog post hearsay does come from anything specific it needs to be identified and specified. What century? What location? What incident? How widespread? I would like to know myself. From the blog post you give, there is no clue to those questions. And in the credible sources, there is just zero that I know of, or that you have shown, in support. 


Friends' beliefs are found in a history of written "testimonies" on any number of topics, which are for-the-record written statements forged from consensus in Friends Meetings. For first-generation history of Friends there are early journals such as the journal of George Fox of 1600s England. There are any number of credible books giving description and history of Friends; any library will have such books on the shelf. Go to those for sources. Where is such written in a Friends "testimony"? Where is such found in any credible historian writing Quaker history? From my father telling of his Conservative Friends' upbringing in his childhood and other old Friends along the way I picked up a lot of lore, a lot of idiosyncracies, a lot of trivia about Friends' history and practices. But I have never heard of that one. The whole thing does not make sense because it violates Friends' testimonies of non-secrecy and truth-telling combined with acceptance of consequences for speaking truthfully. 


I realize there is an outside possibility there could be something somewhere or maybe even I could have read something thirty years ago and not remember. I am willing to be corrected if you can find or show primary-source, or credible secondary-authority source description, attesting to this alleged custom or practice of Friends. But I am saying, I don't know of it, and I don't think its there at all. You have taken one hearsay, undocumented claim in a blog post, like citing an urban legend, and run with it as a basis for building argument upon it. At least, if you are going to continue to cite the hearsay blog claim as sole evidence, maybe make clear that that is what it is, that neither it or you have a primary or authoritative source to cite on that (unless you do). 


OK I've said my piece on this. Thanks for listening GregP! 

Greg, the easiest way to provide multiple quotes is to copy and paste what you want to quote, highlight it and then click the quote function in the editor (the thought bubble icon).

The lessons were held at St. Mark's according to secretary to the Head Master Mrs. Jean Evans: "Mrs. Evans further advised it is her understanding that Mrs. Paine tutors at least one student from St. Mark's in the Russian language, giving him extra assistance on Saturday, using the St. Mark's school facilities. Mrs. Evans advised that this one student is Bill Hootkins..." That is Mrs. Evans to the FBI on March 24, 1964. The present tense indicates it was ongoing at the time of that FBI interview.

Please cite a reference to Ruth tutoring Hootkins other than at St. Mark's, and other than on Saturdays? 

I posted the cite in the opeing post.  Here it is again.

Oviatt, as Asst Aeadmaster, would have known, if anyone did, what was going on. On the other hand, Mrs Evans as secretary to the Headmaster, would also possibly know, despite it neing part of her duties. 
I will say for the sake of progress that she did know. How to we resolve this?

Easy. Both could be right.

Oviatt gave his information to Hosty on Oct 31, Evans, Mrs Hootkins and Ruther the Truther gave their information post-assassination.

Having already established that Hootkins was not at Shasteens on the first occasion Oswald was (on or about the 5th of October), and having established that the private lessons most likely commenced late August, it can be assumed that the lessons were originally at the school. Sometime from mid or late October through to some time in November prior to the assassination, Hootkins was visiting the Paine home.  We know why Lee stopped going to Shasteen's. We can guess why Hootklns did, and from then on, the lessons returned to St Marks. Everyone wins! Everyone was telling the truth! Everyone gets a Kewpie Doll!

I know one of your issues is that some of the Shasteen visits were not on a Saturday. But there was nothing stopping young Hootkins hopping a bus and going to Irving on his own on other days. Social visits rather than lessons. But for a short while, some lessons were at Ruth's place. And that fits her profile. She would not have been able to resist parading her prize Russian native to her student.

Since there is no evidence any coveralls of Michael Paine existed, there is nothing "most likely" about it. I realize what you are saying, that it is a possible explanation for the coveralls looking oversized or too large for Shasteen's customer wearing them, and you connect that to Michael Paine who was over 6 feet tall. The weak point is in explaining how it makes sense that Lee would change into Michael Paine's coveralls to go to a barbershop, but on no other occasion and for no other reason so far as is known. Nobody else ever saw Oswald or Michael Paine in coveralls. No coveralls in any photos of the garage.

I know it is a circumstantial case, but it is a reasonable one.

>Mike would have been issued coveralls while in the army.
>He tinkered in the garage and the coveralls would be handy for that.
>As you note, they were too big for Oswald - just as described by Shasteen. 
>They would be handy to wear for haircuts. Just take 'em off  afterwards and give 'em a good shake.

No, they do not appear in photos of the garage. But that does not mean they were not there, or not in the washing.

Lot's of things were missing in photos that should have been there. Oswald in the sniper's nest, spy camera in the evidence photos, paper bag at the crime scene, smirk on Ruth's face, Oswald's body in the BackYard Photos.

You say no witnesses to either Lee or Mike wearing those coveralls. But that's only because you refuse to accept Shasteen. If Lee only wore them to the barbers 2 ot 3 times and not any other time, and Mike only wore them while tinkering in the garage, why would you expect any more witnesses than just Shasteen?

Plenty of contemporary references show "Old Mexico" was synonymous for "Mexico". In Shasteen's HSCA testimony Shasteen refers to the same incident and calls it "Mexico" where he has his "Oswald" telling him the yellow shoes were bought for such a cheap price. And doesn't the cheap price sound like over the border cheaper in Mexico?

Shasteen's HSCA interview is usless as evidence. It clearly shows his memory was polluted by then.

And I already said "Old Mexico" could be a reference to contemporary Mexico.  If that had been the sole possible meaning, you would win on this. But it is not. It can also refer to any part of the terrority annexed/ceded or otherwise ending up on the US side of the ledger, as it were.

Old Mexico could be a reference to anywhere in the yellow area of this map





I believe Oswald was takling about Houston 

As for whether the house slippers even existed, we have this from Marina:

Mrs. OSWALD. These are Lee's shoes.
Mr. RANKIN. When you say the shoes, you pointed to Exhibit 149?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. This is a pair of shoes of which Exhibit 149 is a photograph.
Mrs. OSWALD. These are his bath slippers.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 148 are his bath slippers?
Mrs. OSWALD. Japanese bath slippers. These shoes I have never seen.
Mr. RANKIN. That is Exhibit 147, you say those are shoes you have never seen?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=538

Trouble is that if you go to exhibit 148, it is a pair of flip-flops. I have never heard those referred to as "bath shippers" let alone as "Japanese bath slippers". The definition of slipper and shoe entails a covered toe area.  Did Oswald have a pair of bath slippers or house shoes that disappeared? It is weird that she calls flip flops "slippers", but maybe something was lost in the translation.

That said, we sometimes refer to them here jokingly as Japanese riding boots... but that's another story.

Anyhow, that small piece of testimony offers a glimmer of evidence that Oswald had something like the shoes/slippers described by Shasteen.  Like I said previously, maybe they just fell apart frior to Nov 22. Or maybe they were so nice looking, one of the cops "souvenired" them.

As for the cost, did Houston have no flea markets? It certainly does now.

And Houston was where he was between leaving New Orleans and arriving back in Dallas.
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t6-the-houston-problem-pt-1
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t7-the-houston-problem-pt-2


I will address everything else asap.

Well you showed a photo, but the photo is not in color and there is no support from witnesses (to my knowledge) remarking on Oswald having hairy arms with black hair. Shasteen noticed that about his customer, but nobody noticed that about Oswald, is the point. 

LOL Talking about someone usually doesn't include how hairy their arms are. 

Shasteen noticed because he was a hair guy.

The photo shows Oswald had black hairy arms. Yes, the photo is in black and white, but the hair is obviously very dark.

In fact I don't see a particularly striking match in physical description beyond "maybe, could be" in a sense that would apply to a few tens of thousands of similarly aged teenagers in Dallas or Irving, but have not made a point of it in the present discussion because it is all irrelevant and moot if Shasteen's customer was not Oswald.

You don't? Wow. Just wow.

Let me look it at again. Maybe I was looking at in the wrong dimension. 

Mr. SHASTEEN. Well, he had on blue jeans and they fit tight and he had on an old striped shirt, I remember him just like I see a picture over there right now and he was a husky kid, he wasn't what you call fat, but he was strong--broad-shouldered--he had a real full, and when I say full, I don't mean a round fat face, he was a wide-faced kid. You know, he was a nice looking kid. I mean, if he had had the personality and the teaching and the understanding to go with his looks, he could have done anything he wanted to do, but his personality to me made him look terrible and what he thought, and naturally when somebody disagrees with you to the point you get angry with them, you don't think much of their looks, but if you bring it down to his looks, he was blue-eyed, blonde-headed--he was not a light blonde he was a dark blonde. In fact a lot of. people might call him brown-headed. But he wasn't nobody's dummy because a 14-year-old (or as he said preciously, 14 OR 15) boy can't spit out--I wouldn't attempt to say just how he said everything (translation, he was a hellava lot smarter than me), but the things that struck me when he belittled our country and our leaders as a whole I might disagree with our leaders but I'll stick up for them when it comes time down to the point.

Mr. SHASTEEN. I don't believe the boy lived there, because, you know, in other words--it has been in the back of my mind and the last--and when I see school kids, I'm always kind of wondering if I'm ever going to see him again and I never, had never saw that kid since.



Husky - yep
Strong, broad shouldered - yep
wide face - well, it is wider than the other dudes in thoto, so yep.
Nice looking - that's purely subjective I wouldn't go that far, but he's not plug ugly either.
he could have done anything he wanted to do - could have and did.  People like Hootkins stand out even before they are well known. 
Dark blonde hair - yep
Nobody's dummy - no he wasn't. Learnt Russian, Mandarin and astrophysics.

From other testimony and statements
14 or 15 years old - yep
Not local to Irving - Hootkins lived in Dallas

How you could suggest that this description would match "tens of thousands" of other similar aged boys in Dallas and Irving is just utterly stupifying to me.

I narrow it down to ONE. OOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

But to throw some half-arsed science into this, I looked up the 1963 population for the whole DFW area. It was 1.6 million.

From that and using a mix of guesswork, and ethnic breakdown percenetages from more modern eras, I calculate that there would be about 8,000 to 9,000 white 15 year old boys in the whole DFW in '63. 

Of those 8 to 9K, how many are going to be husky, wide-faced, broad shouldered, dark-blondes  who were obviously extremely bright and could talk on the subjects this kid did? 

Let's break it down even further. This kid also had some sort of SHORT TERM connection to Irving.  

To the contrary. The references to Oswald looking in need of a haircut--that means looking scruffy on the neck above all else--come independently from two coworkers of Oswald at TSBD, and independently from FBI physical description, and from Fritz of DPD. That is four independent sources. A man who had his hair cut two weeks earlier will simply not be scruffy on the neck or look like he needs a haircut that way like all the observers who saw Oswald said he looked that way. This single point of people seeing Oswald scruffy in the neck, needing a haircut, is stand-alone evidence that that customer of Shasteen was not the real Oswald. There is no barber in America who is going to not groom a customer's hair back of the neck when giving a haircut. Leaving the back of his neck looking unshaven and scruffy was not what that customer's haircuts were about when the customer wanted only a "16th" or "32nd" taken from off the top or sides every 2 weeks. 

You are predicating all of this on your biased opinion of what the police and FBI meant by "needs a haircut". You cannot do that. You can't say they were referring to his godamn neck hair unless they actually said they were refrring to his godamn neck hair. 

You make it sound like they stood him up and got him to turn various ways so they could study and inspect him from every angle.

The FBI agent for a start, was just eyeballing him from across a desk. A plain reading (you know all about plain talking being a Quaker - apply that to your reading) simply means his hair looked like it needed a trim.  And that was true of Oswald for the standards of the day. His last cut was on November 8. Every 2 to 3 weeks for another cut means they were right. He needed a cut. By the standards of the day.

All this reminds me however, that I did forget to address the barber who claimed to cut his hair in Oak cliff on two occasions. 

The interview is like that dead skunk in the middle of the road. It stinks to high heaven. Seems they needed something to dispute Shasteen and this guy, Herman Harrison, came to the rescue. Notably missing from the interview.... oh nothing much really. Only every conceivably important detail. No description given. No photo shown. No time frame for the alleged cuts. No other barbers or customers named who could corroborate.

Less than worthless.

And it is not as if there were no cases of mistaken identity in Oak cliff. At least two different lodgers at 1026 N Beckley were variously and mistakenly recalled as being Oswald post-assassination. 

I will address your stirling attempt at a defense of the Friends of Truth and their Truthiness asap

Flip flops/sandals are called "Slippahs" in Hawaii... oft gets mispronunced as slippers.

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Flip flops/sandals are called "Slippahs" in Hawaii... oft gets mispronunced as slippers.

LOL. Yes, I think warmer cimates tend to have a completely different language and view on a lot of things! As I said, they get called "Japanese riding boots" here - but most commonly, we call them "thongs". Which can cause some problems....

https://multimedia-english.com/videos/esl/carl-barron-montreal-comedy-festival-2006-2406

So how do you view the flip flops being supposedly described as "Japanese bath slippers" by Marina?

Is it possible the real "Japanese bath slippers" where in fact the yellow slip-ons described by Shasteen and that they were subsituted in the exhibits for the flip flops? 

Shasteen said Oswald told him the cost of the slip-ons was $1.50. How much would a pair of flip flops have cost in 1963 in the US? How much would a pair of cheap slip-ons cost at a 1963 flea market in the US? 

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing flip flops were cheaper than a $1.50 in 1963 and that it was indeed possible to buy slip-ons for a $1.50 in a flea market in 1963.

Described as Thongs:



Is there better description of the writing on them, manufacturer brand etc?

So also in that pic are nice black Hardy shoes.
Let me get this straight....
Lee goes to Beckley changes his shirt...
Changes his britches... but keeps on the same work shoes ? huh!
Didnt he have to take off the work shoes to change from work pants.... but puts back on old sweaty shoes when a supposedly nice pair is sitting there.
I dont buy it.
Cheers, Ed

greg_parker wrote:You are predicating all of this on your biased opinion of what the police and FBI meant by "needs a haircut". You cannot do that. You can't say they were referring to his godamn neck hair unless they actually said they were refrring to his godamn neck hair. 

"He [Oswald] never wanted to get a haircut. We would tease him about it because hair would be growing down his neck. We told him a week or two before the assassination that we were going to throw him down and cut it ourselves, but he just smiled. But he was a good worker and I don't remember his getting into arguments with anybody." -- Roy Lewis, Texas School Book Depository fellow employee, in Sneed, No More Silence, 86

I started my article with that.

greg_parker wrote:Mr. SHASTEEN. Well, he had on blue jeans and they fit tight and he had on an old striped shirt, I remember him just like I see a picture over there right now and he was a husky kid, he wasn't what you call fat, but he was strong--broad-shouldered--he had a real full, and when I say full, I don't mean a round fat face, he was a wide-faced kid. 

[. . .]

"when I say full, I don't mean a round fat face..." (Shasteen)
I think Hootkins' face looks like a round fat face.
An overweight "nerdy" kid. 
Different color hair according to the firsthand informant who knew him growing up.
Lives in Dallas not Irving.

Shasteen's kid lived in Irving, because patronizing Irving's barbershop, family (who we will agree with Shasteen was not Oswald) brought the kid to Shasteen's shop on a weekday school afternoon Mon or Tue Nov 18 or 19. No evidence whatever Shasteen's kid did not live in Irving. Shasteen saying he thought so because he did not recognize him is not evidence.

Maybe the kid of Shasteen's shop went to a Catholic private school, not a public school, I don't know. In any case I doubt Shasteen knew all kids even in the most local public school and I suspect in a city the size of Irving there was more than one public school. The evidence the family of the kid was local in Irving is, there is no evidence they weren't, and (per Shasteen's testimony) a non-Oswald family member drove the kid for his haircut on the afternoon of a school day in a car that was not Ruth Paine's station wagon. That means a local family who was not Ruth Paine, in the absence of evidence otherwise, it just does.

greg_parker wrote:Having already established that Hootkins was not at Shasteens on the first occasion Oswald was (on or about the 5th of October), and having established that the private lessons most likely commenced late August, it can be assumed that the lessons were originally at the school. Sometime from mid or late October through to some time in November prior to the assassination, Hootkins was visiting the Paine home.  We know why Lee stopped going to Shasteen's. We can guess why Hootklns did, and from then on, the lessons returned to St Marks. Everyone wins! Everyone was telling the truth! Everyone gets a Kewpie Doll!

I know one of your issues is that some of the Shasteen visits were not on a Saturday. But there was nothing stopping young Hootkins hopping a bus and going to Irving on his own on other days. Social visits rather than lessons. But for a short while, some lessons were at Ruth's place. And that fits her profile. She would not have been able to resist parading her prize Russian native to her student.

You are getting Ruth bringing Hootkins all the way in to Irving, then driving him all the way back, on Saturdays in ca. late Oct to Nov 1963 for his Russian lessons which would include meeting with Marina, all on the basis of Hosty's Dec 11, 1963 memo writing that assistant headmaster Oviatt, on Oct 31, 1963, told Hosty that "at this time [Oct 31], however, she [Ruth Paine] was not teaching on a full-time basis but tutoring students at their homes."

That is simply unclear language for the tutoring happening not as part of classroom. It means no different than Ruth going to Hootkins' home where she picked him up and drove to St. Mark's and then back to Hootkins' home, as Ruth Paine said, as Hootkins' mother said, and as Mrs. Jean Evans, secretary to the headmaster at St. Mark's, said more accurately. 

Clearly Hosty's report that Oviatt told him, Hosty, that Ruth Paine was tutoring Hootkins at Hootkins home ("tutoring students at their homes") was not literally occurring at Hootkins' home. But for you to jump to citing that slight garbling to make that into some kind of secret tutoring of Hootkins occurring in Irving different from what Hootkins' mother, Mrs. Evans, and Ruth Paine said was going on--which Marina also never mentioned occurring, which Michael Paine also never mentioned occurring, which no neighbor of Ruth Paine ever mentioned seeing, which nobody mentioned occurring--does not make sense. More likely either Oviatt did not personally know the specifics (this might be suggested from Oviatt alluding to multiple students tutored by Ruth Paine to Hosty not realizing it was only one), or else he did and told Hosty and Hosty garbled it slightly in wording. More likely one of those two trivial explanations than what you are saying.

Greg_Doudna wrote:

greg_parker wrote:You are predicating all of this on your biased opinion of what the police and FBI meant by "needs a haircut". You cannot do that. You can't say they were referring to his godamn neck hair unless they actually said they were refrring to his godamn neck hair. 

"He [Oswald] never wanted to get a haircut. We would tease him about it because hair would be growing down his neck. We told him a week or two before the assassination that we were going to throw him down and cut it ourselves, but he just smiled. But he was a good worker and I don't remember his getting into arguments with anybody." -- Roy Lewis, Texas School Book Depository fellow employee, in Sneed, No More Silence, 86

I started my article with that.

Yes. Yes, you did. And I ignored it because it is irrelevant. Lewis says this happened a week or two prior to the assassination. He also says "he never wanted to get a haircut". In other words, Oswald wore his hair like that at the back the whole time he was working there. 

I was talking about you taking what Lewis said about the back and trying to put that into the minds of the FBI and DPD as the reason they said he needed a cut. People who are losing hair up top tend to want to make up for it somehow by growing beards or mustaches or ponytails - or just shaving everything,.  This was probably Oswald's version of that, as was his insistance not much be taken off the top.

Mr. SHASTEEN. The fact is, he never did want his hair cut--he always wanted it to look like it was about a week old when he cut it and he got a haircut about every 2 weeks, 


What the FBI and Dallas police said goes to my pile of evidence, not yours, no matter how much you try and twist it.