Let’s consider what would have happened if Oswald hadn’t been killed that Sunday morning.  Surely, he would have continued clamoring for a lawyer. And he already done a lot of clamoring. I found 13X that, on camera, he complained about not being provided a lawyer. Plus, he devoted his entire MPC address to imploring the world to get him “legal assistance.” He did so much damage that they felt compelled to do damage control by tricking H Louis Nichols into believing that he met with Oswald in his cell, who turned down his offer for a lawyer. That was NOT Oswald, but rather, an Oswald double. What’s my evidence for it? The timing. Nichols said he didn’t conceive of the idea until 5 pm. Then he had to get dressed and ready; then drive downtown; park; make his way through the swarm at City Hall. Then, he said he ran into Chief Curry, whom he knew, who offered to help. He said he had him wait in his office for a while, where they talked. And joining them were two FBI agents. Finally, they said it was time to proceed. So, they took him up the elevator to the 5^th floor where he was allowed to visit with “Oswald” in his cell.

But, at 6:24, Oswald was already down on the 3^rd floor being taken to Fritz’ office for his Saturday evening interrogation. You can see him there doing that in this film, which says 6:24.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04aL80prg7U&t=3s

So, the reason that Curry stalled; the reason that he killed time with Nichols was to wait for the window in which Oswald would be somewhere else, and they could install the double in his cell, who would then turn down Nichol’s offer of a lawyer.  

Now, if you are a true Oswald defender; If you believe in his innocence and his intelligence, then you know he would NEVER have turned down that offer.  

So, if he hadn’t been killed on Sunday morning, he would have continued clamoring for a lawyer. And it was just that year, 1963, in March, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon vs. Wainwright established that the 6ith Amendment guaranteed the right to an attorney. And that decision took immediate effect.

So, it would have been impossible for them to continue denying Oswald a lawyer. Had they done so, the whole world would have known that they were flagrantly violating his rights.

So, what would have happened when Oswald met with a lawyer? This is what would have happened.

Lawyer: Mr. Oswald, I am Mr. So and So, an attorney.  First, are you all right? Have you been mistreated?  You look a little rough.

Oswald: I’m a little banged up from what happened in the theater, but I’m all right.

Lawyre: Good. Now, we haven’t much time, so I just have to ask you: Did you shoot the President?

Oswald: No. I didn’t even own a rifle with which to shoot the President. .

Lawyer: They’re saying you ordered a rifle from Chicago.

Oswald: I did not. And why would I do that? They have rifles here in Dallas. I could have gone into K-Mart and bought a rifle if I wanted one.  

Lawyer: So, you didn’t obtain a money order and mail it to Chicago?

Oswald: Absolutely not.

Lawyer: Well, that means the FBI has concocted phony evidence against you.

Oswald: They have.

Lawyer: Where were you at the time of the shots?

Oswald: I was standing in the entrance with other employees, including my boss, Bill Shelley.

Lawyer takes out a photo.

Lawyer: Is this you?

He points to Doorway Man. Oswald does a double take.

Oswald: Yeah, that’s me, but they altered that image. Still, it’s definitely me. That’s where I was.

Lawyer: What about the photograph they showed you of you wielding two weapons?

Oswald: That was not me. They put my face over the body of another man, and I told them so.

Lawyer: What was your attitude towards President Kennedy?

Oswald: I liked him. And I certainly never thought of killing him. I’m not insane.

Lawyer: And Officer Tippit?

Oswald: I didn’t kill him either. I never went to 10^th and Patton. That was somebody else.

Lawyer thinks for a long moment. Then he responds.

Lawyer: I believe you. And it means that you are being framed. And since the government is the one framing you, it means that they must have killed the President. So, this is what I want you to do: I want you to refuse to answer any more questions unless I am present. I am going to demand a preliminary hearing in which I will challenge all their evidence. I will release a statement to the press, professing your innocence, and there is no gag order preventing me from doing that.

Oswald: I am worried about my family. I haven’t heard from my wife in days.

Lawyer: I’ll look into it, and I’ll get her to safe place. They have no right to detain her.

Oswald. Good.

Lawyer: I am also going to file a motion challenging your remandment on the grounds of personal safety. I am gong to visit you every day because it’s the best way for me to protect you.

Oswald. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Do you see what it would have set in motion? Do you see why they desperately needed Oswald dead? And they knew it in advance. They hoped he would die in the theater, but he didn’t.  Then, they hoped they could kill him on national television at the Midnight Press Conference, but that didn’t work out either. Finally, on Sunday morning, they got him killed. But remember: they took possession of his wife on Saturday, which means that they knew what was going to happen on Sunday.

Everything was planned, and Jack Ruby was just a helpless, hopeless, witless patsy.  The same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald. LBJ put the Dallas Police up to killing him.

Like Oswald, Ruby was completely innocent. The difference between them was that Oswald was of sound mind, and Ruby was not.

 Kenneth Edward Drew is not a supporter of mine. He thinks that Ruby shot Oswald. He doesn't realize that Ruby only accepted that he did it because Dallas Police told him that he did. Ruby said he had no memory of shooting Oswald. How can someone admit something they don't remember doing?

But, despite not being a supporter of mine, Ken admits that Freako from the footage is NOT Jack Ruby. This is what Ken said:

"I will point out that the photo above is not of Ruby, it's not the person that shot LHO, it's not the person that was arrested. It's not the hat that Ruby wore when he was in the photo. Not one feature on that guy resembles Ruby."

Ken is right about that, and he is plainly right. It's obvious, plain as day, and at first glance, that that weird freaky guy is not Jack Ruby. He looks nothing at all like him.

So, how is it that at this advanced time, people, and I mean anyone, is capable to claiming that Freako is Ruby? Well, the fact is that the modus operandi of the killers has always been to use vigorous denial to claim all kinds of weird stuff. In other words, they resort to bullying. And worse than bullying, they resort to threatening. I've been threatened. My home has been trespassed. My truck has been vandalized. A tracking device was put on my truck. It fell off, and I still have it. And that's just a sample of what's been done to me because of my advocacy of Oswald's innocence and Ruby's.

But Ken, you see, never got the memo that he was supposed to insist that Freako is Ruby, that he has an impossible shadow over his eye through which he wouldn't be able to see anything. You see shadows aren't black holes. You can easily see an area that is in shadow. It has no direct light, and it's darker than usual, but it isn't jet black. The black disc is an alteration. Someone took a Sharpie to it. That's what the disc is: ink.

But, way to go, Ken. You inadvertently and unwittingly did a good thing. You're absolutely right that Freako is definitely not Jack Ruby.

 This is the newspaper clipping that surfaced about two years after I started proclaiming that there were no images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination- or afterwards. It's one of two images that surfaced; the other of which got discredited by the Chief Archivist of the United States. But, let's take a close look at this one.

So, there are three men observing an exhibit, about bank robberies. You'll notice that the central figure in the image is the man in question. It's fair to say that he is central, and the other two men are marginal. The man on the left isn't even completely captured. He is cropped. It is normal in journalism to delineate an image according to its central elements. Why? Because: it's presumed that the photographer pointed his camera to center on the most important elements.

So, in this case, the caption starts with Bob Crowder because he is the central figure in the image. So, it talks about him and then the two FBI agents. And notice that he is standing somewhat apart from them. So, they are closer to each other than they are to him.

The second man is Manning Clements, and we recognize him from JFK photos, since he was involved and got photographed. Then the third man is James Bookhout, who is mentioned last because he is the most marginal figure- half missing. Now, that man we see there on the margin, the left margin, isn't real. That wasn't Bookhout. That man was pasted over the short James Bookhout. How do I know that? Because he's a freak. He's a monstrosity. Bob Crowder was a very tall man. I think he 6'5". That man on the left would have 7 feet tall.

Remember, your suit jacket only goes down to the level of your groin. It doesn't go halfway down your thigh. So, most of your lower extremity is below the bottom of your jacket, and, we have to account for that on him. So I have put an arrow at the bottom of his jacket and then added some legs beneath it. Can you see now that he is a freak? That he is impossibly tall? This is just more JFK assassination photo-fakery. That old guy on the left wasn't there. James Bookhout was there, and since he was short, it was easy to cover him up with a tall man. But, they went too far. They created a freak, and the fraudulent manipulation of this photo is very obvious. And they doctored Crowder's image too, changing his hair, his noise, and more in an effort to liken him to the image of young James Bookhout from law school. But, the man in the cneter of this photo is definitely Texas Ranger Bob Crowder. We don't see James Bookhout at all. He was covered up by Freako on the left. The JFK assassination is a swarm of photographic evil. It is the most photographically altered event ever, and no other event comes close.

 Edward Edwards was NOT the one who masqueraded as Jack Ruby at the Garage Spectacle. That man was FBI Agent James W. Bookhout, and I shall lay out the evidence for it.

It starts by realizing that Oswald knew the Shooter. He exchanged glances with him prior to the shooting. Oswald did not look his way when the Shooter came in. Oswald kept his eyes steeled straight ahead, and that's abnormal because we naturally tend to look at moving objects that are approaching us. It's a survival instinct.

So, I knew that Oswald knew the Shooter. But, who could he have known in that situation? It could only be someone from law enforcement. After ruling out all Fritz' men, I turned to the FBI agents, James Hosty and James Bookhout. Hosty was too tall. Then, when I nonchalantly tried to find an image of James Bookhout from the assassination, I realized there weren't any. What the mother folk? HOW COULD THERE BE NO IMAGES OF JAMES BOOKHOUT WHEN HE FOLLOWED OSWALD AROUND LIKE HIS SHADOW THE WHOLE WEEKEND?

Years later, Bart Kamp tried to proffer an image of Bookhout in Fritz' office which he said was confirmed by the National Archives, but the Chief Archivist of the United States denied it in an email to me. And it was a goofy, ridiculous, fraudulent image anyway.

We know that on Monday, November 18, which was the Monday before the assassination, there was an inter-office telegram exchange between J Edgar Hoover and James Bookhout. We don't know the content of the telegrams, but there is a record of them.

Now, why would the Director of the FBI be exchanging telegrams with a lowly special agent in Dallas? Notwithstanding the word "special," Special Agent is not a high rank within the FBI, and it is a quasi-military organization.

Then consider Boohout's story on the day of the assassination. He said that he had just begun a "leave of absence." He said nothing about what he was taking the leave of absence for. Was it to study? Was it to travel? Was it to take care of a sick relative? We don't know because he didn't say, and the WC didn't ask. But, it is part of the record that Bookhout was granted a one year leave of absence after the assassination- and that's with pay. What did he need a leave of absence for? And if he deserved one, what about all the other agents? Didn't they also deserve one?

It was really about disappearing Bookhout so that no one would get a look at him and realize he was the Garage Shooter.

And do you know how long the dearth of images of James Bookhout continued? FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. Not even in his obituary was there an image of him.

I have communicated, multiple times, with Constable Jim Bookhout, the son of James Bookhout. He is fully aware of what I have been saying. Consider how easy it would be for him to shut me up for good. All he has to do is provide an image of his father, a verifiable image, such as an image that includes his father and himself. Some have tried to claim that Bookhout was over 6 feet tall. Well, the Garage Shooter was short. He was the shortest man in the garage. So, if it were true that Bookhout was tall, then a single family photo would prove it. Right? So, why hasn't Jim Bookhout provided one? It's because he knows very well his father wasn't tall.

The ONLY images that we have of James Bookhout are his yearbook photos from Woodrow Wilson High in Dallas and SMU. And when you compare those images to the Shooter, you realize that Bookhout was the Shooter.

Again, I don't say that he actually shot and killed Oswald. What we saw in the Garage was all theater. It was acting. Oswald was shot for real afterwards in the Jail Office.

Here is the bio of Edward Wayne Edwards from Wikipedia.

Edward Wayne Edwards (June 14, 1933 – April 7, 2011)[2] was an American serial killer and former fugitive. Edwards escaped from jail in Akron, Ohio, in 1955 and fled across the country, holding up gas stations. By 1961, he was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

Edwards was captured and arrested in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 20, 1962. After his release from prison on parole in 1967, Edwards murdered at least five people between 1977 and 1996. He is suspected of several additional killings.

So, Edwards was in prison in 1963 and wasn't released until 1967. So, how could he have been the Garage Shooter?

And the very idea that J Edgar Hoover would use Edwards is preposterous. If he did, he would have had to kill him. No way could Hoover trust Edwards. But, Hoover could definitely trust Bookhout.

The killing of Oswald was baked in the cake from the start. They knew they had to kill him because they, the FBI, had conjured up phony evidence against him, such as the rifle and the Backyard photos, which would NEVER hold up in court. They had to get Oswald dead before he even talked to a lawyer. I believe they hoped he would die in the theater. Then, I think they arranged the Midnight Press Conference hoping to shoot him then, but that didn't work out either. Then, they got it done on Sunday morning.

The Dallas Police didn't conceive of this. I believe that LBJ put them up to it. They were all military veterans, and this was the Commander in Chief giving them an order.

But, the idea that a serial killer would be trusted and empowered to do it is ridiculous and absurd.

I don't know if the guy who is claiming that the Garage Shooter was Edwards is just stupid, or if he's doing it as a distraction to muddy the water. But, I assure you it was James W. Bookhout, and I would stake my life on it. And, in a way, I have.

 Because Will Ruha repeated a common falsehood about the Oswald shooting, I must once again clarify that millions of people at home did not see Jack Ruby shoot Oswald in the garage. The millions of people at home watching it on television did not know Jack Ruby, so they could not possibly recognize him. What they saw was a short, pudgy, middle-aged white man in a tight-fitting suit and a fedora hat, whose face remained out of view the whole time, shoot Oswald. The viewers had no idea who he was. They only came to believe he was Jack Ruby because the Dallas Police announced it later.

And because they never saw the Shooter's face in the garage, they had nothing to mentally compare Ruby's face to when they saw him. So, they accepted what they were told.

Moreover, NO REPORTER IN THE GARAGE CLAIMED TO RECOGNIZE RUBY AT THE TIME. And that includes Hugh Aynesworth who knew Ruby very well and had eaten lunch with him very recently. Even he said that even though the Shooter zipped right in front of him, he had no idea he was Jack Ruby. Aynesworth said he found out the same way everyone else did, by the Police announcing it.

The only ones who claimed to see Jack Ruby in the garage were lying cops, such as Jim Leavelle. And Leavelle was one wicked liar. He not only claimed to recognize Ruby, he claimed that he took action to protect Oswald, pulling him behind him, as if he was going to take the bullet for Oswald, And Leavelle claimed to strike Ruby on the shoulder, which never happened. We have the films, and in them we can see that Leavelle was looking the other way as the Shooter came in. Leavelle did not begin to react until after the shot went off.

This is from the 1978 movie RUBY AND OSWALD in which Leavelle was an actor and technical advisor. He was paid for both. What you are seeing here is him striking "Ruby" on the shoulder, as he claimed to do, but never did. It is not seen in any film of the shooting, only in this recreation.

So, Leavelle lied about that, and he lied about the Shooter being Ruby. He knew very well that the Shooter was FBI Agent James Bookhout. And by the way, why wasn't Bookhout there? He attended everything that Oswald did. Bookhout was there.

Ruha: the only ones who claimed to see Ruby shoot Oswald were lying cops like Leavelle. No reporter saw Ruby do it, and no one at home saw Ruby do it.

Now, if you say it again, that millions saw Ruby shoot Oswald, you'll just plain be lying.

 If you doubt what I'm saying that the Beers photo was altered over James Bookhout short height, and so they made it look like he was all stretched with his feet wide apart, then compare it to the Jackson photo. They were taken at essentially the same time. The story goes that Beers came first and Jackson was a fraction of a second later, like half a second. And you can't change your stance very much in half a second.

In the case of Jackson, I have not added an enhancement to complete him, and that's because it's impossible to know for sure what his feet were doing. However, I suspect that they were both flat on the ground and average distance apart.

However, I am very confident about the enhancement I did for Beers because in the position he is in, he had to be up on the toes of his left foot. And if you try to duplicate the position yourself, I think you'll find that I'm right.

But, I'm not saying that Beers Shooter was doing what I'm describing. I think it was done in "post". That's an expression. In the movie business, "post" is short for "post-production." And post-production refers to everything you do to a film after you're done shooting it.

So, I'm saying that the Beers Shooter was configured differently, but they saw that he looked very short, which did not fit for Jack Ruby. So, they called the artists in for a solution. In those days, they did everything with paint. Today, it's all done digitally, and it's referred to as "visual effects."

But, we have to compare the Beers photo that we have to the Jackson photo that we have. And obviously, the Beers Shooter and the Jackson Shooter are configured very differently. So, how could it have gone from one to the other in half a second? The Shooter rushed in and shot Oswald in what was practically a contact shot. He didn't stop far away from him and stretch in the rest of the distance to do it. And if you check the films, such as NBC and KFLD, you'll see that.

You can't reconcile these two images. Either the Shooter had a huge spread between his feet, or he didn't. So, they both can't be real. And I don't think either one of them was real. I think they were both taken at a photo-shoot earlier that morning.

Supposedly, the last interrogation of LHO went from 9 AM until 11:15. That's over 2 hours. With all the sessions that preceded it, don't you think they would have run out of things to talk about?

James Bookhout admitted that he was there that Sunday morning. He said that after the last interrogation, when LHO was brought downstairs to his ultimate demise, he, Bookhout, remained in Fritz' office. Why? He provided no reason. He said nothing about needing to make a call. He provided nothing at all. Then he said he heard that Oswald had been shot, so he went down to the Jail Office, and by then, Oswald was on the floor there. But, it was all a lie. Bookhout masqueraded as Ruby in the televised spectacle.

But then, Bookhout was asked what Oswald said in the last interrogation. Bookhout said he didn't know because he got there a little late, and not wanting to disturb the meeting, he just watched it through the glass partition of Fritz' office. (Fritz' office was like a fishbowl."

Now, do you believe that? Do you believe that James Bookhout, who was the liaison to the Dallas Police for the FBI would have refrained from entering Fritz' office? Frankly, I don't think he was that shy.

But then, the WC questioner asked Bookhout if Fritz' said if Oswald said anything noteworthy during the session, and Bookhout said that Fritz said he didn't. In 2 hours and 15 minutes? Nothing of importance was said? According to Harry Holmes, another liar, Oswald waxed on about his trip to Mexico City, which he denied taking in the first session. Holmes was the only one who made this claim. So, Oswald retracted a lie he told in the first session, and that wasn't important? Oswald never retracted anything. He never went to Mexico City, which I had the privilege of discussing with Mark Lane. And Mark knew it as early as December 7, 1963 when he published his Lawyer's brief.

So, my point is that there was no final interrogation. That time was spent getting ready for the photo-shoot in the basement, so that they could capture those "iconic" photos in advance. And they were also there to capture the real Jack Ruby, who got there an hour early. By the way, the Fritz notes for the final Oswald interview contained nothing but the names of the men who were there; not one word about anything Oswald said.

 

They realized they had a problem in that James Bookhout was considerably shorter than Ruby. So, they tried to make up for it by altering the Beers photo. In it, the Shooter appears to be very outstretched, with a huge span between his two feet. In fact, the span is so great that you don't even see his left foot. In this collage, I have added his left foot to complete the perspective.

First, nobody would do that. The span between his feet was determined by his stride, and he wouldn't have been thinking about his stride. He would have left it alone. And you can see in the picture that his left leg is much longer than his right. I added the image of Gene Kelly, whose legs are the same length.

Gene Kelly was dancing; Bookhout was not. If we were to believe the Beers photo, we would have to accept that the Shooter stopped short, far from Oswald, and leaned in a great distance in order to make what was practically a contact shot.

But, the Shooter didn't do that. Watch him in action in this NBC film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjXRQXlBU3g&t=81sv The Shooter rushed in and got close to Oswald. He was upright and snug with Oswald when he pulled the trigger. He didn't stop short and stretch in, as it appears in the Beers photo.

In the Beers photo, we see the disparity in the length of the legs of the Shooter, where his left leg is long and way out of proportion to his right; where he has stopped short of Oswald and leaned in.

And then, I added the image of dancer Gene Kelly showing a similar stance, in which you can easily see that his legs were the same length and in balance.

So, what should we make of this? I have been saying for years that the Beers and Jackson photos were taken at a posed photo-shoot in the basement beforehand. And it's part of the record that the Police cleared out the garage at 9:45. Remember: reporters and cameramen expected the Jail Transfer to occur at 10 AM. So, of course they were there at 9:45. They had started taking positions for this 40 foot walk to a car. But then, they were ordered out, and that included Jail Doctor Fred Bieberdorf. Beers shot his photo from a ladder; he was up on a ladder. And he was about as far back as he could be. You can't attribute the disparity to the angle. It's disproportionate due to dalliance. The Shooter's left leg is too large and too long, and it was done to compensate for James Bookhout's short height.