Taking a Simpler View

I have been thinking lately about the way the case is viewed. The WC gave us four separate elements that they have strung together. And most researchers follow that lead - although why we believe anything the WC says is beyond me.

The four parts of the case they include are:
1 - the Walker shooting
2 - the Kennedy Assassination
3 - the Tippit killing
4 - Oswald's murder by Ruby

These are the four primary elements of the case, it seems to me, and many researchers try and come up with a theory that encompasses all four.

Some write off the Walker shooting (#1) as something that did not involve Oswald, despite the evidence brought before the Commission. The WC used it to prove Oswald had a "history" of violence, even if it included a history as a lousy shot.

Many also write off the Tippit killing (#3) as an act that was impossible for Oswald to have accomplished in the time involved. And that is probably correct if we follow the bus - taxi scenario rather than the Rambler station wagon scenario.

Because Ruby killed Oswald (#4), most people think it was because Ruby was somehow linked to the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. This seems bolstered by the fact that people testified to seeing Ruby with Lee - unless that person was really Larry Crafard or someone else. (Maybe Harvey??)

And the assassination itself (#2), find a wide array of theories as to Oswald's degree of involvement/non-involvement.

Most theories I have read include three of the four points above woven into an unruly framework though some can even weave in the Walker escapade as well. Regardless, the construct becomes large and cumbersome, and prone to failure because of a loose thread here or there.

So, what I am thinking lately... ARE these separate parts actually related?

Perhaps the problem with making much headway into solving the assassination is because we tend to try and explain everything else with the same theory, sort of the Grand Unified Theory of the assassination. (Some claim the case is solved - others say it will never be solved.)

What if the WC is wrong about that as well?

The reason I ask is because I found the same sort of thing happening with the Lincoln assassination. Peripheral events were tacked onto the case to create some montrous conspiracy where there wasn't one, thus allowing the real conspiracy to remain hidden.
How closely does history repeat itself?

Any thoughts?

"So, what I am thinking lately... ARE these separate parts actually related?"


They're related in that proving a conspiracy for one of them would strongly suggest the other three were conspiracies too. Of course determining there was a conspiracy then leads to the next question, was Oswald an innocent man framed or an accomplice left holding the bag?

terlin wrote:I have been thinking lately about the way the case is viewed. The WC gave us four separate elements that they have strung together. And most researchers follow that lead - although why we believe anything the WC says is beyond me.

The four parts of the case they include are:
1 - the Walker shooting
2 - the Kennedy Assassination
3 - the Tippit killing
4 - Oswald's murder by Ruby

These are the four primary elements of the case, it seems to me, and many researchers try and come up with a theory that encompasses all four.

Some write off the Walker shooting (#1) as something that did not involve Oswald, despite the evidence brought before the Commission. The WC used it to prove Oswald had a "history" of violence, even if it included a history as a lousy shot.

Many also write off the Tippit killing (#3) as an act that was impossible for Oswald to have accomplished in the time involved. And that is probably correct if we follow the bus - taxi scenario rather than the Rambler station wagon scenario.

Because Ruby killed Oswald (#4), most people think it was because Ruby was somehow linked to the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. This seems bolstered by the fact that people testified to seeing Ruby with Lee - unless that person was really Larry Crafard or someone else. (Maybe Harvey??)

And the assassination itself (#2), find a wide array of theories as to Oswald's degree of involvement/non-involvement.

Most theories I have read include three of the four points above woven into an unruly framework though some can even weave in the Walker escapade as well. Regardless, the construct becomes large and cumbersome, and prone to failure because of a loose thread here or there.

So, what I am thinking lately... ARE these separate parts actually related?

Perhaps the problem with making much headway into solving the assassination is because we tend to try and explain everything else with the same theory, sort of the Grand Unified Theory of the assassination. (Some claim the case is solved - others say it will never be solved.)

What if the WC is wrong about that as well?

The reason I ask is because I found the same sort of thing happening with the Lincoln assassination. Peripheral events were tacked onto the case to create some montrous conspiracy where there wasn't one, thus allowing the real conspiracy to remain hidden.
How closely does history repeat itself?

Any thoughts?

Good post. FWIW only and some conjecture involved.

1. Walker shooting was a publicity stunt not involving Oswald. So-called Walker note written by Ruth Paine.

2. The JFK assassination is solved for me. Whether anyone agrees with me will have to wait until all three volumes are out. Oswald was patsy and had no other involvement.

3. Tippit killing not done by Oswald. Crafard now a suspect. This case is still the most puzzling as to where/how or even IF it fits into the larger picture.

4. A combo of coercive techniques and incentives were used to get Ruby to do the deed. Otherwise no involvement.

greg parker wrote:
Good post. FWIW only and some conjecture involved.

1. Walker shooting was a publicity stunt not involving Oswald. So-called Walker note written by Ruth Paine.

2. The JFK assassination is solved for me. Whether anyone agrees with me will have to wait until all three volumes are out. Oswald was patsy and had no other involvement.

3. Tippit killing not done by Oswald. Crafard now a suspect. This case is still the most puzzling as to where/how or even IF it fits into the larger picture.

4. A combo of coercive techniques and incentives were used to get Ruby to do the deed. Otherwise no involvement.

Great answers although regarding #2 you have the advantage because your book is not yet published. And I doubt you'll be giving us any hints so I'll just have to wait patiently for the denouement when it arrives.

Many have called the Tippit killing is the "Rosetta Stone" of the case and they may be right, just not in the way most people take it. Most think, I assume, that Lee had some history there. (Or was it Harvey? LOL)

With regard to Ruth Paine, it seems most people think Oswald was unaware of her CIA connections but is that really the case? How would it change anyone's perceptions if they knew Oswald was well aware of her and DeMohrenschildt's relationship with the agency?

Great post Terlin!

I would add Mexico City to your list

I agree that it's a mistake to assume that all these separate events were directly related.

terlin wrote:
With regard to Ruth Paine, it seems most people think Oswald was unaware of her CIA connections but is that really the case? How would it change anyone's perceptions if they knew Oswald was well aware of her and DeMohrenschildt's relationship with the agency?

I don't think Oswald would've gotten close to them if he knew they had ties to the CIA. Marina appears to have distanced herself from Ruth Paine in the aftermath of the assassination when she learned of Paine's CIA ties. I think, had Lee known about it when he was alive, he likely wouldn't have let Marina move in with Ruth...

I've spent the last few months going through a lot of material on Mexico City.  It is a real rabbit hole.  But today, in the post-ARRB landscape, I cannot see how any interpretation can avoid the evidence that "Oswald" was being set up there through impersonation.  I happen to agree with those like John Newman, P.D. Scott, Jim DiEugenio, Bill Simpich, and others, that Mexico City may very well be the Rosetta Stone for Dallas, whether you see the events from mid-September through mid-October as (a) part of an Agency counterintelligence op serving from its inception as a cover story for setting up Oswald to take the fall and for forcing a post-assassination cover-up by virtue of the false foreign conspiracy leads that were planted in connection with it; or, (b) as an independent counterintelligence op which was penetrated (obviously by persons with Agency access and knowledge), thereby forcing a cover-up, presumably in order to protect sensitive "sources", because of its entanglement with the fall-guy  (I personally favor the former explanation, though I can see how one could reasonably argue for the latter).  In any case, I cannot see how Mexico City would be entirely unrelated to Dallas.

capone81 wrote:

terlin wrote:
With regard to Ruth Paine, it seems most people think Oswald was unaware of her CIA connections but is that really the case? How would it change anyone's perceptions if they knew Oswald was well aware of her and DeMohrenschildt's relationship with the agency?

I don't think Oswald would've gotten close to them if he knew they had ties to the CIA. Marina appears to have distanced herself from Ruth Paine in the aftermath of the assassination when she learned of Paine's CIA ties. I think, had Lee known about it when he was alive, he likely wouldn't have let Marina move in with Ruth...

Did Marina know of Lee's CIA connections or was that one of the reasons for their "trial separation"?

Personally I think Lee was a smart cookie so how could he have overlooked others' connection with the agency. Unless he was simply blind-sided by it.

Albert Rossi wrote:I've spent the last few months going through a lot of material on Mexico City.  It is a real rabbit hole.  But today, in the post-ARRB landscape, I cannot see how any interpretation can avoid the evidence that "Oswald" was being set up there through impersonation.  I happen to agree with those like John Newman, P.D. Scott, Jim DiEugenio, Bill Simpich, and others, that Mexico City may very well be the Rosetta Stone for Dallas, whether you see the events from mid-September through mid-October as (a) part of an Agency counterintelligence op serving from its inception as a cover story for setting up Oswald to take the fall and for forcing a post-assassination cover-up by virtue of the false foreign conspiracy leads that were planted in connection with it; or, (b) as an independent counterintelligence op which was penetrated (obviously by persons with Agency access and knowledge), thereby forcing a cover-up, presumably in order to protect sensitive "sources", because of its entanglement with the fall-guy  (I personally favor the former explanation, though I can see how one could reasonably argue for the latter).  In any case, I cannot see how Mexico City would be entirely unrelated to Dallas.

Thanks for mentioning Mexico City (and thanks to capone81 for the nod as well). That's one aspect of the case I have not delved too deeply in even though David Atlee Phillips (i.e. Maurice Bishop) is a fascinating character. Perhaps I should check into the Mexico office a bit. And the Miami office as well, I suppose.

I had always figured since the guy in Mexico wasn't Oswald, what was the point? But there could be more in the mix.