Lee Oswald assassinated by Jack Ruby, never received the right to a trial by jury. Assuming we still believe in our system of jurisprudence, he remains innocent - having never been proven otherwise.
Bravo to the Lee Oswald Innocence campaign, e.g.
For over fifty years now the family of Lee Harvey Oswald- as well as the memory of the man himself - have been slandered in the corporate media (partly with the assistance of Operation Mockingbird assets - google the term) with no redress. Using first a fraudulent whitewash organ in the "Warren Commission", then the steady drumbeat of the media to repel all attempts to shed light on the actual facts of the case, the Oswald family has been left disconsolate as its name has been dragged through the mud by a determined security state.
That state has resolved that no other line of facts will emerge from the 53 year old case to expose what really happened and that Lee Harvey Oswald is totally innocent of anything to do with Kennedy death. Author James Douglass ('JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters') is owed a debt of gratitude by the JFK research community for being among the first to show the CIA had planned a hit on Kennedy almost 3 weeks before Dallas.
Douglass showed that Thomas Arthur Vallee, had been earmarked as the Chicago assassin for Kennedy’s proposed visit on Nov. 2, 1963. Vallee, like Oswald, was sheep-dipped, and likely selected for patsy-hood using a false defector program that the ONI originally set up in 1959. Had JFK traveled to
Thus, Oswald's disruption of the Chicago plot to kill Kennedy mutated to a Dallas plot to use Oswald instead as the go-to patsy. All that needed to be done were: 1) Paint him as a lone psycho commie and violent (setting up the Walker shooting to pin on Lee), and 2) Manipulate him into a job at the Texas School Book Depository (pegged to be the "official" location of the kill shot by the actual conspirators).
The first was accomplished by a process of framing Lee, see e.g.
The second was implemented thanks to the chicanery of Ruth Paine. Paine, who Warrenites seem to hold up as some kind of unquestioned paragon or model citizen, never acknowledged in any of her testimony that she withheld from Lee the news of a better paying job offer made on Oct. 15, 1963. This came by way of phone call to the Paine Residence from Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission. According to the documented materials presented by author James Douglass (op. cit., p. 171):
"Adams spoke with someone at the Paines' number about his being prepared to give Oswald referral for permanent employment as a baggage handler at Trans Texas Airways for a salary $100 a month higher than that offered by the Book Depository's temporary job".
Adams then left a message with whomever took his call for Lee to contact him about the job, but this was never done. Adams tried to phone Oswald the next day, and was told he "wasn't here". Why? Why wasn't the better paying job information passed on to Oswald? Given Paine's background, and her connections to CIA people like her sister (Sylvia Hyde Hoke) and Allen Dulles, the obvious reason was to put the patsy in place.
These are important insights, make no mistake, because they bear on the will to use whatever subterfuge and ruse to kill Kennedy and deflect attention from the actual perpetrators and architects to a decoy. That decoy was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Former Swiss Spezialdienst Rolf, a friend for over 38 years, makes no bones about the fact the Dallas hit on Kennedy was a "classic use of decoy to execute a head of state". He ought to know, he's been more than familiar with similar hits on the continent (as part of Projekt 26 files.) Those include the use of "doppelgangers" or doubles (like the multiply reported Oswald double) to misdirect the public and enable the security state's media assets to assist in portraying the patsy as unstable, as well as the only perp possible.
As I reported in my Nov. 20, 2014 post:
Rolf reported that the Oswald double, who he called "Leon", hid in plain sight in St. Gallen 'for many years' albeit using a false identity. The Swiss left him alone to preserve neutral relations with the
As for the illustrious Warren Commission, Rolf's take - as noted earlier- was it had been "little more than a PR job mainly done to cover Johnson’s ass " LBJ put together a "commission" all right, but it wasn't federal (that would've been the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) formed in 1978- which, incidentally, found for a conspiracy. Nor did Johnson politely "call on" then Chief Justice Earl Warren. He freaking threatened him with exposure of a past humiliating incident if he refused to cooperate. Johnson needed the credibility of Warren so the media would accept the commission as a bona fide government entity as opposed to a creature of Johnson's whim and machinations. (Johnson’s first kneejerk reaction was to form a “Texas Commission” to look into the assassination, with staff entirely composed of Texans.).
Anyway, Johnson's taped words to an aide were - after speaking to Warren (cf. Michael R. Beschloss, Taking Charge:The Johnson White House Tapes 1963-64, 1997, p. 72, as cited by Russ Baker, in 'Family of Secrets', p. 46):
"Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances...He came down here and told me 'No'...twice. And I just pulled out what[FBI Director} Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City....And he started crying and said: 'I won't turn you down...I'll just do whatever you say.'
Texas hogswill? Hardly. Not when seen in the context of other LBJ actions, e.g. going behind Kennedy's back to get back channel reports (from the CIA) on the Vietnam situation. In fact, a character so warped that despite all the recent efforts at hagiography, there is little doubt LBJ helped plan the hit knowing the alternative was to be dumped from the 1964 ticket as a result of the Bobby Baker scandal (set to hit the presses Nov. 26 in a LIFE expose), then be prosecuted. Lest anyone believe this too far-fetched let's reference that Jackie Kennedy herself - in an interview with historian Arthur Schlesinger in 1964 - expressed her belief that LBJ had her husband killed as part of a plot with Texas oilmen.
All of this in tandem points the finger of guilt clearly away from Lee Oswald, as well as the fact one is innocent until proven guilty and that had never been done. In other words, Lee Oswald was himself assassinated before his own trial (the only real venue for proving his guilt) and this was then replaced by a Potemkin trial in the name of the Warren Commission and its ensuing "report" (also a farrago of lies, distortions and omitted testimony from key witnesses). See e.g.
Some innominate Wordpress bloggers are, of course, unhappy about the Oswald Innocence Campaign. They are foursquare convinced he was the one and only assassin- and despite all the contrary indicators (as given above), and the failed WC rifle tests (with 3 master marksmen unable to exactly replicate Oswald's alleged feat with the same rifle and conditions)remain convinced that Lee is guilty. In a sense this is cognitively dissonant and preposterous given in this country a man is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Does the same not apply to Lee? Evidently not in the minds of the rush to judgement pro-Warrenites - convinced that fraudulent whitewash Commission did the job. It did not.
The innocence campaign objectors also - in at least one case- have zoomed in on one piece of evidence offered, i.e., that Lee was outside the TSBD when the hit occurred and hence not on the 6th floor firing as the WC claims.
But this misses the boat. Clearly, Oswald's innocence doesn't pivot on one photograph (or many) of whether or not he was outside at the time of the shooting. Rather, it is already predicated on the unimpeachable fact that he never received a jury trial and hence in its absence must be presumed innocent, if we are faithful to our legal system. Potemkin show trials and kangaroo courts held with Lee 6 ft. under do not count. Sorry!
Further, the entire constellation of indicators (of which I've given a subset in this post) clearly points away from him as the lone assassin, or as any co-assassin! Hence, Lee's innocence doesn't fall on one single prop and one would hope most researchers are intelligent enough to see that. Granted it would be a very unambiguous prop, but it's not the sole one, and as I said that "innocent until proven guilty" (by jury) presumption hangs hugely over any and all discussions.
The objective researcher who examines the files, transcripts, images, and testimony (including that not given in the "official" perverted venue) must be at least clear that: a) Lee was not the one who killed JFK, and b) we have enabled (as James Douglass informs us) the actual conspirators to have completely escaped prosecution or any accountability.
In Douglass’ words:.
“Our collective denial of the obvious, in the setting up of Oswald and his transparent silencing by Ruby, made possible the Dallas cover-up. The success of the cover-up was the indispensable foundation for the murders of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy by the same forces at work in our government – and ourselves:
Hope for change in the world was targeted and killed four times over. The cover-up of all four murders, each leading into the next, was based – first of all –on denial. Not the government’s but our own- and the unspeakable was not far away.” .