How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

[Dan O'meara]

One of the more blatant fabrications of the Warren Commission Sham was the introduction of Charles Givens' fictional account of going back up to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald coming from the southeast corner.
How do LNers deal with this fabrication? How do they explain it away?

And this was no trivial detail.
It was one of the key pieces of evidence the Sham offered up in the conclusions of its final report placing Oswald at the scene of the crime.


"Fingerprint and palmprint evidence establishes that Oswald handled two of the four cartons next to the window and also handled a paper bag which was found near the cartons. Oswald was seen in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the sixth floor approximately 35 minutes before the assassination and no one could be found who saw Oswald anywhere else in the building until after the shooting. An eyewitness to the shooting immediately provided a description of the man in the window which was similar to Oswald's actual appearance. This witness identified Oswald in a lineup as the man most nearly resembling the man he saw and later identified Oswald as the man he observed. Oswald's known actions in the building immediately after the assassination are consistent with his having been at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor at 12:30 p.m. On the basis of these findings the Commission has concluded that. Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which the shots were fired."[WC Report pg156]

[John Corbett]

One of the more blatant fabrications of the Warren Commission Sham was the introduction of Charles Givens' fictional account of going back up to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald coming from the southeast corner.
How do LNers deal with this fabrication? How do they explain it away?

And this was no trivial detail.
It was one of the key pieces of evidence the Sham offered up in the conclusions of its final report placing Oswald at the scene of the crime.


"Fingerprint and palmprint evidence establishes that Oswald handled two of the four cartons next to the window and also handled a paper bag which was found near the cartons. Oswald was seen in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the sixth floor approximately 35 minutes before the assassination and no one could be found who saw Oswald anywhere else in the building until after the shooting. An eyewitness to the shooting immediately provided a description of the man in the window which was similar to Oswald's actual appearance. This witness identified Oswald in a lineup as the man most nearly resembling the man he saw and later identified Oswald as the man he observed. Oswald's known actions in the building immediately after the assassination are consistent with his having been at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor at 12:30 p.m. On the basis of these findings the Commission has concluded that. Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which the shots were fired."[WC Report pg156]

How did you establish that Givens account was fictional?

It really doesn't matter because this isn't a key piece of evidence. There is plenty of forensic evidence that establishes Oswald was the one firing the shots from the sniper's nest at 12:30. As Bugliosi pointed out, anyone who doesn't believe that is either unfamiliar with the evidence or a very silly person. Which camp do you fall in?

[Dan O'meara]

How did you establish that Givens account was fictional?

It really doesn't matter because this isn't a key piece of evidence. There is plenty of forensic evidence that establishes Oswald was the one firing the shots from the sniper's nest at 12:30. As Bugliosi pointed out, anyone who doesn't believe that is either unfamiliar with the evidence or a very silly person. Which camp do you fall in?

The point of this thread is to establish how Nutters such as yourself deal with this issue.
Do you accept Givens' account of returning to the 6th floor as laid out in the WC report?

BTW, any evidence that makes it into the conclusions of the WC report can be considered 'key'. It's not a matter of whether or not YOU think it's key evidence.

[John Corbett]

The point of this thread is to establish how Nutters such as yourself deal with this issue.

If you can't prove Givens lied, there is no issue to deal with.

Do you accept Givens' account of returning to the 6th floor as laid out in the WC report?

I have no reason not to. You certainly haven't provided one.

BTW, any evidence that makes it into the conclusions of the WC report can be considered 'key'. It's not a matter of whether or not YOU think it's key evidence.

Even if you could establish that Givens made up this story, which you haven't, it doesn't negate all the other evidence that positively establishes Oswald was the one who fired the shots from the sniper's nest. The WC scenario doesn't require that it be proven Oswald  was on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting because there is ample proof he was in the sniper's nest at the time of the shooting.

Do you guys ever bother to apply even a modicum of logic to your arguments.