Wednesday, 08 May 2024 02:03

The Dallas Police Convicted Oswald without a Trial - Part 1/2

Written by

Johnny Cairns exposes the wildly unethical and irresponsible behavior of the Dallas law authorities, behavior which deprived Lee Oswald of any possibility of a fair trial, — and ultimately took his life away.

“The dead cannot cry out for justice. It is a duty of the living to do so for them.” - Lois McMaster Bujold

History is replete with injustice, which often blooms from the seed of tragedy. In the tumultuous aftermath of the Dealey Plaza catastrophe, the roots of such an injustice would weave itself tightly around Lee Harvey Oswald, accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

In little under the 48 hours from his arrest to his violent execution, within the bowels of the Dallas City Jail, Oswald found himself ensnared in a caricature of justice at the hands of the Dallas Police. Faced with concocted accusations and deprived of his right to counsel, Oswald's final hours were characterized not by the proclamations of a political assassin, but by the desperate protestations of his innocence.

“I don’t know what dispatches you people have been given but I emphatically deny these charges. I have nothing against anybody, I have not committed any acts of violence.” (See this)

Yet, amidst these protests, the authoritative voices in Dallas relentlessly pronounced his guilt. They nourished the fears of the American public with a narrative designed for convenience rather than for justice.

However, the case of the lone assassin is not founded on a bedrock of empirical evidence, but rather it is entrenched in a brew of circumstantial conjecture and outright fabrication. The case stands as a carefully crafted facade tailored to meet the demands of expediency. Under scrutiny, it falls, as Senator Richard Schweiker said, like a house of cards.

As you navigate the vast array of guilt-laden assertions, consider these critical questions: During his all-too-brief detention, did the Dallas Police ever uphold Oswald's constitutional right to be presumed innocent? Could Oswald have received a fair trial in Dallas? Or anywhere in the United States for that matter? Or had the actions of the Dallas officials made Oswald’s hypothetical trial a perfunctory charade devoid of justice? You decide.

November 22, 1963

Picture1A Perpetual Rush to Judgement.

Sylvia Meagher. The Dallas Police are not so bad. Look how quickly they caught Jack Ruby.(Accessories After the Fact; p. xxvi)

Within just 76 minutes of his arrest, Lee Oswald was publicly identified as a suspect in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.Brandishing a photograph of Oswald for the television cameras, a newsman declared, “This is what the man charged with the assassination of the President looks like.” This rapid transition—from a man “sneaking” into a movie theater to being universally acclaimed as a communist Presidential assassin—was nothing short of remarkable. (WCR; p. 241; WCR, p. 206)

The media worked fast, broadcasting to an anxious nation the erroneous events surrounding Oswald’s arrest.

“Here in Dallas the man that all America is looking at this time is 24-year-old Lee H. Oswald, being interrogated at the Dallas City Police building. At the time of his arrest in a theater of the Oak Cliff section of Dallas he was subdued after ‘killing’ a Dallas Police Officer with a snub-nosed revolver. Struggling with another officer and striking him with that pistol and during that struggle he was heard to shout It's all over now. I’ve got me a President and a cop, and I'll try for two more. A fanatic in every sense of the word.” (See this)

Air Force One was informed of Oswald's sole guilt in the murder as it transported the body of the martyred President back to Washington. The narrative carried was unequivocally dismissive of any well-orchestrated conspiracy behind Kennedy’s murder, preferring to lay the heinous crime squarely on the shoulders of a 'lone-nut assassin'.

Simultaneously, the plane carrying President Kennedy's cabinet members from Honolulu back to DC, was fed the same story. As Pierre Salinger details in With Kennedy. Salinger was provided with extensive information about Oswald's background, his ‘defection’ to the Soviet Union and his affiliations with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.(Praise From A Future Generation; by John Kelin p.5, With Kennedy p; 28)

The Line-Ups.

As I documented in point 24 of "Assassination 60”, the line-ups Lee Oswald was subjected to by the Dallas Police should be regarded as “utterly worthless.”Yet, the most outrageous incident occurred during the parade attended by witnesses Ted Calloway, Sam Guinyard, and Cecil McWatters. Calloway testified that before their viewing of the suspects, he was told by the Dallas Police that:"We want to be sure. We want to try and wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President, and if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him.( WC Volume III; p. 355)

As Gerry Spence quipped to Calloway during the London mock trial of Lee Oswald,“Do you think that’s a fair and impartial way to make a line-up on somebody? I mean if you were standing in the line-up, innocent, charged with a crime and somebody said, we want to wrap him up real tight— because if we can show he killed the Officer, we got the man who killed the President, do you think you would have got a fair shake?” (For more on the line-ups, please see point 24 of Assassination 60. And this)

NBC Press Interview with Sergeant Gerald Hill.

In this interview, Sergeant Gerald Hill discusses Oswald's insistence on his rights and firmly asserts his absolute conviction of Oswald’s guilt in both the Kennedy and Tippit murders.

Hill. Oswald started demanding that he be allowed to see a lawyer…and demanding his rights.
Q. Do you believe that he is the same man who killed the police officer?
Hill. Having been in it from the very beginning, as far as the officer's death is concerned, I am convinced that he is the man that killed the officer. I am convinced that the man we have is the man who shot the officer.

Yet, Hill knew fine well that hours before this interview, he had declared to the police dispatch that:the shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol. (WC Volume XXIII; CE1974-78; p. 870)

Why is this significant? Because the weapon alleged to have been taken from Oswald at the Texas Theatre was a revolver, not an automatic.

The interview then pivots to the capabilities of the cannibalized and defective WWII, Mannlicher Carcano, the alleged rifle used in the murder of President Kennedy. Hill assures the newsmen that it required ease, rather than extraordinary skill, to obtain from the Carcano the performance required to accomplish the assassination single-handedly.

Hill. (From the Texas School Book Depository, Oswald) would have had a clear shot, and with a scope it would have probably been real easy.
Q. (President Kennedy) was struck from behind, wasn't he?
Hill. I understand that he was, yes, sir. That the shots were fired from behind. ( WC CE2160, p. 804-805)Picture2

Picture3Despite these critical revelations by Hill, the true shock emerges from the admissions of Assistant District Attorney William 'Bill' Alexander. Known as a staunch right-winger infamous for his provocative rhetoric, Alexander shocked many in 1968 when he advocated publicly for the hanging of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Notably, he likely would have served as the prosecutor in Oswald's trial for the Tippit murder.

Alexander admitted to author Henry Hurt that; “Once Oswald was charged as the assassin of President Kennedy, the District Attorney's office ceased collecting evidence in the Tippit case.”

This abrupt abandonment of due process is startling, yet Alexander continued: "The Tippit case just went by the boards. When Oswald was killed two days later, official interest in developing evidence in the Tippit case ceased altogether. There was never an indictment in the case or further investigation."

Alexander then told Hurt this whopper; “We all knew the same man who killed the President had killed Tippit. We had made up our minds by the time we got to (10th and Patton, scene of the Tippit murder). The two acts were so similarly drastic and unusual that it was virtually impossible that they were committed by separate killers.” (Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p.157)

This premature judgment underlines a miscarriage of justice, where subjective assumptions supplanted a rigorous investigation. How could such critical legal determinations be made with such disregard for factual accuracy and fairness?

Further compounding the investigative failures, the public assertions Hill made about the bullet trajectories in Dealey Plaza predated the autopsy of President Kennedy. So how could Hill know that all the wounds suffered by the president would jibe with the results of the autopsy?

The autopsy was so poorly conducted that it prompted Dr. Milton Helpern, the highly respected and decorated Chief Medical Examiner of New York City—once described as'Sherlock Holmes with a microscope'—to comment on the utter incompetence of the career Navy forensic pathologists, Dr. James Humes and Dr. Thornton Boswell, who performed President Kennedy’s autopsy. Dr. Helpern likened their skills to:“It's like sending a seven-year-old boy who has taken three lessons on the violin over to the New York Philharmonic and expecting him to perform a Tchaikovsky symphony. He knows how to hold the violin and bow, but he has a long way to go before he can make music.” (NY Times, 4/23/1977; p. 22)

Moreover, in a recently uncovered video by Secret Service expert Vince Palamara, Dr. Malcolm Perry describes the neck wound of President Kennedy on November 22 as;“a small penetrating wound, which appeared to be the entrance wound of one of the missiles.” (See this)

(For a deeper look into the President's autopsy, please refer to part 3 of Assassination 60.)

The Procession of the Rifle.

Picture4Newsman. “This is room 317 of the homicide bureau, here at the Dallas Police station. As you see, they are bringing the weapon that was allegedly used in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, this afternoon at 12:30pm here in Dallas. This is the weapon that was used. A rather well-worn military rifle, with a scope.” (See this)

In the claustrophobic corridors of the Dallas City Jail, the 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano, incontrovertibly labelled as the death weapon of President Kennedy, was ostentatiously displayed before a throng of avid television and newspaper reporters. Cameras snapped relentlessly as journalists jostled to capture images of the notorious rifle, which Lieutenant Day brandished.

The intentional public display of the Carcano was not merely a lapse in protocol—it was a deliberate strategy to influence public opinion and prematurely brand Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy. This act effectively sidestepped the judicial process by contaminating the jury pool. Which depends on a neutral panel to carefully examine the evidence.

Mayor Earle Cabell.

Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell, whose brother Charles Cabell was the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and was dismissed by President Kennedy following the Bay of Pigs debacle, appeared on national television to assert Lee Oswald's sole responsibility for the assassination of President Kennedy.

Mayor Cabell described the assassination as “the irrational act of a single man” and went on to depict Oswald as someone with “a deranged mind,” further embedding this narrative into the public consciousness. (See this and this)

Buell Wesley Frazier.

Detectives Gus Rose and Richard Stovall from the Dallas Police Department had arrested and had under interrogation at the Dallas City jail, 19-year-old Buell Wesley Frazier, a co-worker of Oswald’s at the Texas School Book Depository.

The young and vulnerable Frazier was not informed of any rights he had nor was he offered the opportunity to have an attorney present. During the interrogation, officers Rose and Stovall ruthlessly bombarded him with repetitive questions, aiming to catch him in a contradiction. Frazier vividly recalled the ordeal, noting, “They asked the same questions, over and over…they were trying to see if they could trip me up”,After they had exhausted their tactics, another team of detectives took over, prolonging the gruelling interrogation for several more hours.

The pressure intensified when Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz presented Frazier with a pre-typed confession as to his involvement in the assassination.: “In his hand was a sheet of white paper. He sat it down in front of me with a pen and said, sign this. I quickly realized this was a confession.”Stunned and appalled, Frazier stood his ground, asserting to Fritz, “I’m not signing this, this is ridiculous.” Enraged by Frazier's refusal, Fritz menacingly raised his hand as if to strike him. Frazier bravely retorted,“There's some policemen outside that door but before they get in here, we’re gonna have one hell of a fight.” Fritz then snatched the confession, wadded it up and stormed out of the room.” (Frazier, Steering Truth; p. 48-49)

This episode starkly exemplifies the Dallas Police Department's propensity to deploy deeply unethical tactics in their investigative processes. The fact that 19-year-old Frazier was not informed of any rights he had and was subjected to hours of repetitive questioning without legal counsel is a glaring indicator of the coercive strategies employed by the police. As assistant DA Bill Alexander confirmed to Larry Sneed in No More Silence, “What most people don’t realize is that we had Miranda in Texas before the Miranda decision.” (p. 553)

This method of interrogation—relying on intimidation and psychological pressure—aims to wear down an individual to the point of vulnerability, increasing the likelihood of extracting a confession, regardless of its veracity. As Greg Parker pointed out, it is popularly termed the Reid technique, after its originator John Reid, a polygraph expert and former Chicago police officer.

The incident with Frazier is not an isolated one but rather a snapshot of a systemic issue within the Dallas Police Department. As further detailed through multiple cases, these underhanded tactics appear to be a standard operating procedure rather than exceptions. The repetition of such methods across different cases demonstrates a disturbing pattern of behavior, pointing to a deeply ingrained culture of disregard for legal norms and civil rights.

This pervasive abuse prompts a deeply unsettling question: when Buell Frazier was subjected to such harsh treatment, what kinds of threats and tactics were employed against Lee Oswald to coerce a confession or an admission of guilt from him?

Assistant DA William ‘Bill’ Alexander.

Around 10 p.m., in the office of Capt. Fritz, Bill Alexander, received a phone call from Joe Goulden, a seasoned reporter formerly associated with the Dallas Morning News.

Joe Goulden. What's going on down there?
Bill Alexander. This Communist son of a bitch killed the President!
Joe Goulden. Well, I can’t run with that.
Bill Alexander. Well, I’m getting ready to write the complaint, how about if I wrote up did then and there, voluntarily, and with malice aforethought, take the life of John F. Kennedy in furtherance of a Communist conspiracy? Could you run with that?
Joe Goulden. You got it.

Picture5Alexander's motivations for leaking this information to Goulden were later revealed to Larry Sneed, where Alexander expressed his desire; “to expose Oswald for what he was, a Communist.” Regarding the public's reaction to John Kennedy’s murder, Alexander was disdainfully dismissive: “And as far as anybody giving a particular rat’s ass about John Kennedy getting his ass wiped in Dallas, who cares? A goddamn Yankee comes off down here and gets killed, for whatever reason, big deal!” (No More Silence; pp. 550/554)

Tragically, this remarkable perspective was pretty widespread within Dallas law enforcement. Detective Jim Leavelle, who was handcuffed to Oswald during his murder, expressed a similarly indifferent attitude towards the President's murder in a 1992 conversation with author Joe McBride. “(The Assassination of President Kennedy) wasn’t no different than a South Dallas nigger killin’…It was just another murder to me, and I’ve handled hundreds of ‘em, so it wasn’t no big deal. (Into The Nightmare; p.240)

The American Civil Liberties Union.

Commission Conclusion. On Friday evening, representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union visited the police department to determine whether Oswald was being deprived of counsel. They were assured by police officials and Justice of the Peace (David) Johnston that Oswald had been informed of his rights and was being allowed to seek a lawyer.” (WCR, p.201)

At approximately 10:30pm, Gregory Lee Olds, the President of the Dallas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), initiated contact with Captain Fritz to discuss Oswald's rights and his entitlement to legal counsel. Fritz's response, which suggested Oswald had declined legal representation, was the first in a series of unsettling assurances that painted a picture of a suspect uninterested in his fundamental rights. And as documented in point 17 of Assassination 60, “Oswald consistently expressed his desire for legal representation during his detention.” (see this)

Sam Stern: Did Captain Fritz say that Oswald did not want counsel at that time, or that he was trying to obtain his own counsel?
Greg Olds : What I was told, that he had been given the opportunity and had not made any requests.

Mr. Olds, not satisfied with this explanation, sought direct confirmation from Oswald and, along with three other attorneys, arrived at the Dallas City Jail around 11:35pm, aiming to engage with Oswald directly. Yet, their pursuit of justice was stonewalled under the pretext that Oswald, now charged with the assassination of President Kennedy, had knowingly waived his right to an attorney.

Greg Olds: Captain King (assistant to Chief Curry) assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel. Justice of the Peace David Johnston…assured us that Oswald's rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Chief Curry was quoted to us as having said that Oswald had been advised of his rights to counsel…We felt fairly well satisfied that Oswald probably had not been deprived of his rights, so, we then broke up.

These assurances from police officials, painted a misleading and complacent picture of Oswald's understanding and waiver of his rights. These reassurances were enough to momentarily placate the ACLU representatives, leading them to disband— a decision that would soon be cast in a regrettable light.

In a twist of fate, Olds was present when Oswald made a public declaration of his desperate need for legal assistance—a plea he issued not once, not twice, but three times during the famous midnight press conference. For a few moments, Oswald addressed the American public, where he would declare his innocence.

Lee Oswald: I positively know nothing about this situation here. I would like to have legal representation. Well, I was questioned by a judge however I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don't know what this situation is about, no one has told me anything except I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that and I do request someone to come forward to give me a legal assistance. (See this)

Picture6Oswald's public plea contradicted the police narrative and highlighted a chilling disregard for his rights. Yet, despite Oswald's membership in the ACLU and his clear request for help, no immediate action was taken to ensure his access to legal representation.

This oversight—a missed opportunity for advocacy at a critical juncture—later emerged as a profound regret for Olds, who acknowledged the failure to engage with Oswald directly as a significant misstep. “I have always been sorry that we didn't talk with Oswald…which I think was a mistake on my part.” (Volume VII; p. 322-325)

Press interview with Chief Jesse Curry, Capt. J. Will Fritz and DA Henry Wade.

Commission Conclusion. Wade told the press on Saturday that he would not reveal any evidence because it might prejudice the selection of a jury. On other occasions, however, he mentioned some items of evidence and expressed his opinions regarding Oswald's guilt.” (WCR; p. 235)

Q. Do you think you have got a good case?
Wade. I figure we have sufficient evidence to convict (Oswald).
Q. Was there any indication that this was an organized plot or was there just one man?
Wade. There’s no one else but him…(Oswald) has been charged in the State court with murder with malice. The charge carried the death penalty which my office will ask in both cases.
Q. Sir, can you confirm the report that his wife said he had in his possession as recently as last night, or some recent time, the gun such as the one that was found in the building?
Wade. Yes, she did…she said that he had a gun of this kind in his possession.
Q. A rifle? Last night?
Wade. Last night. The reason I answer that question—the wife in Texas can’t testify against her husband…
Q. Do you think you’ve got a good case against him?
Wade. I think we have sufficient evidence.
Q. Sufficient evidence to convict him of the assassination of the President?
Wade. Definitely. Definitely. (Volume XXIV, CE2142, CE2169 p. 750-751, 829-830-837-838-840.)

November 23rd, 1963.

J. Edgar Hoover. “This man in Dallas. We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong…The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction.” (See this)

NBC Press interview of Jesse Curry.

Q. Chief Curry, how would you describe (Oswald) is he a prime suspect?
Curry. Yes.
Q. Is he the only suspect?
Curry . Yes.
Q. (Oswald) was yelling and complaining about no attorney. Does he have an attorney here now?
Curry. Not that I know of.
Q. Chief, are you convinced this is the man?
Curry. Well, we don’t have positive proof. We feel he is a prime suspect.
Q. What do you think personally?
Curry. Personally, I think we have the right man.( Volume XXIV, CE2143, p. 753-754.)

WFAA-TV. Press interview of Jesse Curry.

Commission Conclusion. “ Curry stated that Oswald had refused to take a lie detector test, although such a statement would have been inadmissible in a trial. The exclusion of such evidence, however, would have been meaningless if jurors were already familiar with the same facts from previous television or newspaper reports.” (WCR; p.238)

Q. Chief, was the subject of a polygraph, a lie detector test, broached with Oswald, and if so, what was the outcome?
Curry. I understood that it was offered to him, and he refused it.
Q. Did he give any reason for refusing to take the lie detector test?
Curry. I understand he said he didn’t have to take it and he didn’t want to.(Volume XXIV; CE2144. p.755-756)

WFAA-TV. Press interview of Captain Will Fritz.

Q. Captain, can you give us a resume of what you know concerning the assassination of the President and Mr Oswald’s role in it?
Fritz . I can tell you that this case is cinched— that this man killed the President. There’s no question in my mind about it.
Q. Well, what is the basis for that statement?
Fritz. I don’t want to get into the basis. In fact, I don’t want to get into the evidence. I just want to tell you that we are convinced beyond any doubt that he did the killing. (CE2153. Volume XXIV, p. 787.)

KRLD-WFAA-TV- Press interview with DA Henry Wade.

Commission Conclusion. “The disclosure of evidence was seriously aggravated by the statements of numerous responsible officials that they were certain of Oswald’s guilt…Wade told the public that he would ask for the death penalty.” (WCR; p. 239)

Q. What sort of man is he? How would you describe Oswald?
Wade. I, I couldn't say. I can’t describe him any other than—the murderer of the President…since I have been District Attorney I’ve tried 24 death-penalty cases, in which we asked for the death penalty.
Q. And how many verdicts did you get?
Wade. Twenty-three.
Q. Are you going to try this personally?
Wade. Yes sir, yes sir…this is a proper case for the death penalty.
Q. Well, from what you have seen, how do you sum (Oswald) up as a man? Based on your experience with criminal types?
Wade. Well, I think he’s the man that planned this murder weeks or months ago and has laid his plans carefully and carried them out and has planned at that time what he’s going to tell the police that are questioning him at present. (CE2170, Volume XXIV, p. 842-843-844.)

Press Interview in the Office of Jesse Curry.

Q. (Is Oswald) Communist or Marxist?
Curry. They say he said he was a communist.

Regarding surveillance on Oswald prior to the President’s visit to Dallas, Curry stated that The FBI “usually let us know when these communist sympathisers or subversives come into the city and why they hadn't got round to informing us of this man, I don’t know.”

When asked about Oswald’s movements before and after the assassination, Curry stated, " a man (Buell Frazier) brought (Oswald) to work yesterday morning and (Oswald) had a large package with him which we believe to be the rifle.” Regarding Oswald's movements after the assassination, Curry asserts that: “(Oswald)shot our officer over in Oak Cliff.”

Curry then qualifies Oswald as an“Expert Marksman”, when in reality Oswald was considered “a rather poor shot”,whilst serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. (See this)

Q. What did you find in his apartment Chief? Did you find some communist literature…
Curry. Yes we did. (See this)

The Paraffin Test.

Commission Conclusion.Wade might have influenced prospective jurors by his mistaken statement that the paraffin test showed that Oswald had fired a gun. The tests merely showed that he had nitrate traces on his hands, which did not necessarily mean that he had fired either a rifle or a pistol.” (WCR; p. 238-239)

Henry Wade.

Q. What about the paraffin tests?
Wade. Yes, I’ve gone into that. The paraffin tests showed (Oswald) had recently fired a gun. It was on both hands. (CE2168; 821)

Jesse Curry.

Q. Chief, we understand you’ve had the results of the paraffin tests which were made to determine whether Oswald had fired a weapon. Can you tell us what those tests showed?
Curry. I understand that it was positive…it only means he fired a gun.
Q. That he fired a gun, Chief, not the rifle or the pistol.
Curry. That’s right…

Jesse Curry.

Q. What does the paraffin test prove then Chief?
Curry . It just proves that the man fired a weapon.
Q. But you believe he is the man who fired the rifle that killed the President?
Curry. Yes, I do. (See this)

For more on the paraffin tests, which strongly indicates Oswald's innocence, please refer to Point 23 in Assassination 60.

WFFA-TV Press Interview with Jessie E. Curry.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an "A.Hidell" would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963." (Volume XXV; p. 857-862)

Newsman. This is a statement from Dallas Police Chief Curry.

Q. Chief Curry, I understand you have some new information in this case. Could you relate what that is?
Curry. Yes, we’ve just been informed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that they, the FBI has just informed us that they have the order letter for the rifle…they received from a mail order house in Chicago. The order letter (has been) compared with known handwriting of our suspect, Oswald and the handwriting is the same on the order letter as Oswald’s handwriting. The return address on this order letter was to the post-office box in Dallas, Texas, of our suspect, Oswald and it was returned under another name. But it had definitely been established by the FBI that the handwriting is the handwriting of Oswald.
Q. Was it a recent purchase?
Curry. This purchase was made on March 20th of this year.(Ed. Note: The Hidell rifle was ordered on 3/12/63)
Regarding the backyard photographs, who’s existence was publicly disclosed by the Dallas Police, Chief Curry states the following
Curry. There is a photograph of him with a revolver on his hip and holding a rifle in his hand.
Q. Does this rifle look like the one that you have, that you think is the murder weapon, sir?
Curry. it does.
Q. Does it have a telescopic sight?
Curry.It does.
Q. Chief, has the order for this gun been connected definitely to the order for the rifle which you found?
Curry. It has.
Q. Chief, was the post office box rented by Oswald?
Curry. The name- the return-the name on the return address was A.Hidell. A.Hidell.
Q. How do you spell Hidell?
Curry. H-I-D-E-double L.
Q. Chief, do you feel pretty certain that this is the rifle which killed the President?
Curry. Yes. (Volume XXIV, CE2145. p. 759-760 WCR, p. 233) (See this)

(For further details on the mail-ordered rifle and Oswald's alibi for ordering it, please refer to Part 4 of 'Assassination 60'.)Picture7

Press Interview of Captain Will Fritz.

Q. Captain where does your investigation stand now? Does it look good?
Fritz. Yes it looks real good, I think we are in good shape. I think we are in good shape on both cases, both the killing of the President and the killing of the police officer later.
Q. You said a little while ago sir that you thought you had it cinched, do you feel that strongly about it sir?
Fritz. Yes sir I do. I feel that its alright.
Fritz then declares that Oswald, enroute to the Texas Theatre; encountered Officer Tippit, who he killed.
Q. That’s pretty well nailed down.
Fritz. That’s it, yes sir. (See this)

WFAA TV Press interview with Jesse Curry.

Picture8Commission Conclusion. If the evidence in the possession of the authorities had not been disclosed, it is true that the public would not have been in a position to assess the adequacy of the investigation or to apply pressure for further official undertakings.” (WCR; p. 240)

Q. How would you describe his mood during the questioning?
Curry. Very arrogant. Has been all along.
Q. Is there any doubt in your mind, Chief, that Oswald is the man who killed the President?
Curry. I think this is the man who killed the President.
Q. Chief, could you tell us what you might have found in his rooming house in the way of literature or any papers connecting him-?
Curry. We found a great, great amount of Communist literature, Communist books…(Hattiesburg American, Nov. 23, 1963. P. 8)
Q. Chief, can you tell us in summary what directly links Oswald to the killing of the President?
Curry. Well, the fact that he was on the floor where the shots were fired from immediately before the shots were fired; the fact the he was seen carrying a package to the building…
Q. Do you figure that was a disassembled rifle?
Curry . I don’t think it was disassembled; the package was large enough for a rifle to be intact.
Q. Was it in a box or was it wrapped?
Curry. Wrapped. Wrapped in a bo—, in a paper.
Q. Has Oswald made any request for a lawyer?
Curry.He has, but he didn’t say who he wanted or anything, so we couldn’t just go out and start calling lawyers for him. That’s not our responsibility. (CE2146. Volume XXVI, p. 763-764-769-770.)Picture9

(For a more in depth look into the origins and scientific tests ran on the paper sack, designated as Commission Exhibit 142, please refer to Part 6 of Assassination 60)

Go to Part 2 of 2

Last modified on Friday, 10 May 2024 11:19
Johnny Cairns

Johnny Cairns is an electrician living in Edinburgh. He first got interested in President Kennedy through his father, Robert Cairns. Since then, he has held an undying admiration for Jack Kennedy and what he stood for. Through familiarizing himself with the facts of this crime, he has also become an advocate for the innocence of his alleged assassin, Lee Oswald. Through the various friendships developed with other researchers and making the trip to Dallas in 2018, he has spoken at JFK Lancer presenting the case for Oswald’s innocence and co-authored a book which is due for release at the end of 2021, titled “Case Not Closed.”

Find Us On ...


Please publish modules in offcanvas position.