A troubling question--

[Erik van t Wout]

My question(s):

Assuming that:
1) Nicoletti was well aware of the plan to use Oswald as the "patsy", and-
2) -Nicoletti was well aware of the fact Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano + bullit shells would be planted on the sixth floor of the TSBD, so-
3) -Nicoletti would only want shots coming from THE REAR --

--why would Nicoletti even ALLOW James Files on the grassy knoll?
I know Files was ordered to only shoot in case of severe necessity (i.e. all shots from the rear would have missed target (the head), but--

-- BIG BUT--

-Why even allow at that stage (an hour before the arrival of the motorcade in Dealey Plaza) the POSSIBILITY to go against the well prepared scenario that Oswald would have to take the blame, and Oswald only?

1) Why did Nicoletti allow that possibility to begin with?
2) Why didn't he go against Files "wish" to be on the knoll, and order him to at least take a position that would result, in case Files would have to shoot, in a shot from the rear?



It's a strange (desperate? / very risky? / reckless? / too selfconfident?) move on Nicoletti's part, isn't it?

Erik van t Wout



 

[dankbaar]

My question(s):

Assuming that:
1) Nicoletti was well aware of the plan to use Oswald as the "patsy", and-

I don't think so. It would be enough to tell Nicoletti that all the shots should come from behind. Even if Nicoletti knew about a patsy, he did not necessarily have to know it was Oswald. Acccording to JF Nicoletti did not even know Oswald.


2) -Nicoletti was well aware of the fact Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano + bullit shells would be planted on the sixth floor of the TSBD, so-


3) -Nicoletti would only want shots coming from THE REAR --

--why would Nicoletti even ALLOW James Files on the grassy knoll?
I know Files was ordered to only shoot in case of severe necessity (i.e. all shots from the rear would have missed target (the head), but--

Just as an insurance in the (for Nicoletti unlikely) event that Nicoletti would not hit JFK in the head.

-- BIG BUT--

-Why even allow at that stage (an hour before the arrival of the motorcade in Dealey Plaza) the POSSIBILITY to go against the well prepared scenario that Oswald would have to take the blame, and Oswald only?

Because Nicoletti would have one shooter less (Roselli) for his particular job.
1) Why did Nicoletti allow that possibility to begin with?
2) Why didn't he go against Files "wish" to be on the knoll, and order him to at least take a position that would result, in case Files would have to shoot, in a shot from the rear?


It's possible he realized that from the Daltex building it's a rather long (and difficult) shot. Anyone who visits Dealey Plaza, will see that a shot from grassy knoll is almost like shooting fish in a barrel. When Peter R de Vries saw Dealey Plaza for the first time he was also amazed with the short distance from the picket fence to the Limo.

It's a strange (desperate? / very risky? / reckless? / too selfconfident?) move on Nicoletti's part, isn't it?

Depends on what was more important to him. Be sure to kill JFK or having all the shots from the behind. Keep in mind that Nicoletti did not count on James Files to shoot and was actually pissed with the fact that he had taken that shot. I have grown convinced that the grassy knoll shot was not planned for and was actually a big mistake. Nicoletti's irritation seems to underscore that. On the other hand it sealed the death of JFK, so he had no real reasons to complain further. But I'm sure the big bosses didn't really like the shot from the knoll. It made their cover-up extremely ackward. One of the things they were forced to do is conceal the Zapruder film from the public


Wim

[Erik van t Wout]

Wim,

All points taken. I inderstand them, but--

--a somewhat less bigger but---BUT--

Files doesn't refer to any discussion on that point with Nicoletti (on the edited DVD)

-(paraphrasing)-
Nicoletti asks: "Where would you like to position yourself"
Files: "On the Knoll"
Nicoletti: "Okay-- "

--that I find weird.
I would have expected Nicoletti to at least argue Files' proposal--

--and Files referring to that argument in the interview.



Erik van t Wout

[dankbaar]

That's on the full unedited interview.

You can look it up in transcripts in the book.

Wim

[Pennyworth]

My question,

If it was foreseen and planned that Oswald was going to be the patsy, then why was he shot by Ruby? A patsy is a fall guy who takes the blame.
They figured he would talk when he got caught, so a desperate attempt was made to silence him. I don't think he was set up as the fall guy or patsy. Oswald had damning evidence against them all.

He was obviously not expected to get caught, or else he wouldn't have been murdered.

[Erik van t Wout]

Wim,

I did. I found quite some discussion about Files wanting to use the Fireball, but no argument on Files' prefered location, the knoll. None.

But then: using the Fireball (in essence a pistol, perfect for relative short distances -- +having the chance for only one shot) = strongly related to taking position on the knoll. That's all part of one decision.

So, I guess in fact they DID have that discussion, except I don't hear Nicoletti verbally object (in Files' resumee) to Files' idea to risk a shot from the front.

I guess Nicoletti was (too) sure Files would not have to shoot.

I like these human details/weaknesses hidden in this drama.
(like Files leaving the shell on the fence - certainly not a professional move, but a very understandable one for a proud guy his age, bursting with adrenaline after his succesfull hit.)

Erik van t Wout

[Erik van t Wout]

my question, If it was foreseen and planned that Oswald was going to be the patsy, then why was he shot by Ruby? A patsy is a fall guy who takes the blame. Only if the patsy knows he is the fall-guy, and fully agrees to take the blame, which is not so in Oswald's case. Oswald did not want to be the patsy -- he didn't even KNOW he was going to be the patsy. Oswald thought he was in on all this to try to stop the assisination from actually succeeding, so they say. He was tricked big time.They figured he would talk when he got caught, so a desperate attempt was made to silence him. Yes, about one hour after the assasination of JFK. This attempt was made by a man whose name has not been named yet by James Files. --the attempt failed--Oswald wasn't killed in this incident-- Officer Tippett was. I don't think he was set up as the fall guy or patsy. Oswald had damning evidence against them all. I think Oswald now realised -and only now- (i.e. after the assasination of JFK succeeded) that he was set up as the patsy, and was stunned by this realisation, and yes----he had pretty damning evidence against the plotters and/or shooters.So Oswald suddenly realised his life was in danger. That's why he flew. On his way to meet his controller, so they say.Keep in mind: The idea was not for Oswald to take the blame IN COURT, the plan was that he could be fully blamed after he was forever silenced.He was obviously not expected to get caught, or else he wouldn't have been murdered.

Sure the plotters were afraid that Oswald would get caught. The man would talk --he would scream that he was innocent (which he did in the corriders of the police-station "I emphetically deny all these charges!! -- and -- "I'm just a patsy!!")

So no risk was taken --see above: 1st murder attempt failed (killed Tippett) --

then Oswald WAS caught (in the Texas movie theater where he was supposed to meet David Atlee Philips, his controller). The fact that he was caught was a setback for the plotters. This arrest was certainly NOT part of the plan.

They had to fall back on plan B now--
Then Ruby got the assignment to kill Oswald (Ruby had easy acces to Police Headquarters/county jail).

A dead Oswald was now the perfect patsy. He could not defend himself anymore.

That's how I understand the events that occurred.

Erik van t Wout

[tom jeffers]

I have always wondered why the information on Oswald went out so soon after JFK was shot. Whoever controlled the media coverage increased the possibility that Oswald would be captured. They did not give enough time for their plan to get rid of him before he was captured.

I also wonder if anyone has ever addressed the extra back wound shown on Kennedy's back in the untouched photo. There appears to be two separate wounds, the Warren Commission photo conveniently airbrushes one out in the photo that they released. What is that other wound and how did it get there?

I read on Fletcher Prouty's websight that he believed that the front neck wound came from the umbrella man. He says that a few years before the CIA new about a dart gun that fit inside one of an ubrella's web and it had a sight on the stalk of the umbrella that was used for aiming while the umbrella was open. He said the it shot a high velocity dart that was extremely accurate. From that poin on, nobody on a route that was secured would have been allowed to open an umbrella, in other words the secret service and CIA would never have let that happen. Isn't it possible that umbrella man could have shot a dart made of ice that could have melted or if it did exit one of the back wounds then what happened to the other wound.

Tom Jeffers

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

09.15.2013Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:06.24.2006 - Mr. Erik van t Wout Posted this open ended Headline:A short, but interesting discussion developed with some facts, points, and questionsthat many still raise today.Can anybody contribute and more recent analyses, interviews, investigations,reading, research, study, or writing that develops this discussion further ?Comments ?Respectfully.BB.