Hosty can’t be serious. A “tentative” match by New York standards to a mutilated bullet with no chain of custody that was described in contemporary reports as a steel-jacketed .30 caliber bullet and that Walker himself said was not the same bullet. That and a guy who said he told Oswald that Walker was a menace. That’s enough to convict somebody? Really?
Walker himself said was not the same bullet.
Mr. BELIN. I will ask you this. Have you ever seen Commission Exhibit 573 before, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell us what 573 is?
Mr. DAY. This slug was gotten from the home of former General Edwin Walker, 4011 Turtle Creek, April 10, 1963, by Detective B. G. Brown, one of the officers under my supervision. He brought this in and released it to me.
Mr. BELIN. You are reading now from a report that is in your possession, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Those are the official records of my office.
Mr. BELIN. Was that prepared under your supervision?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. In the regular course of your duties at the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. The slug has my name “DAY” scratched in it
Eisenberg: Is this a jacketed bullet?
Frazier: Yes, it is a copper-alloy jacketed bullet having a lead core.
Eisenberg: Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?
Frazier: No sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket
Where and when did Walker see the bullet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Found in Oswald's possessions, a photo of Walkers house. Also accompanying is written instructions for Marina
(https://i.postimg.cc/8PVRQxJ0/Oswald-and-Walker.jpg)
Found in Oswald's possessions, a map with Walkers house location marked with a cross
(https://i.postimg.cc/7605KYVY/ce-1013-map-walker.jpg)
Found in Oswald's possessions, a photo of a laneway next to Walkers house, taken just before the assassination attempt and the time frame of when the photo was taken was determined by partially finished construction.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ncgthYxg/ce-2-walker.jpg)
JohnM
Frazier: No sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket[/b]
Found in Oswald's possessions, a photo of Walkers house. Also accompanying is written instructions for Marina
Carl Day identifies it as copper jacketed. And it sure looks like copper jacketing to me:
CE573 does indeed look copper-jacketed. Is there any good reason to believe that CE573 is the “steel-jacketed .30 caliber bullet” that was retrieved from the Walker home in April, 1963?
Carl Day’s testimony.
How would Carl Day know where CE573 came from?
Day tell us this in his testimony. This part was already posted in this thread.
Day wasn’t at the Walker residence. How would he know?
LOL. Name these “individuals”. This is already on the “lame LN excuses” list.
An unsigned, undated note in Russian that doesn’t mention Walker or shooting. Cool evidence, bro. Still trying to figure out how you determined which “possessions” were Oswald’s.
Name these “individuals”.
An unsigned
undated note
that doesn’t mention Walker or shooting.
Cool evidence
bro
Still trying to figure out how you determined which “possessions” were Oswald’s.
Why are you asking me??, ask the man who testified, Frazier.
Written in Oswald's handwriting.
The descriptions of events written by Oswald indicates the time frame.
I don't think we're related? And if you consider us friends then that's nice.
The Walker photos came from the same camera that took the Backyard photos of Oswald and the same camera also took a family photo.
It was rhetorical. But I doubt Frazier could have answered it either.
Handwriting “analysis”. LOL. By people who don’t know Russian. LOL.
“Time frame”. LOL. What “events”?
I can’t be friends with an alias.
Is this supposed to tell you who took the photos or why?
But I doubt
Handwriting “analysis”. LOL. By people who don’t know Russian. LOL.
“Time frame”. LOL. What “events”?
I can’t be friends with an alias.
Is this supposed to tell you who took the photos or why?
So by “time frame” you mean sometime between June, 1962 and April 1963. That’s helpful.
“Consistent with”. LOL.
sometime between June, 1962 and April 1963.
So, the note must be about shooting Walker because it can be narrowed down to a particular 10 month period that happens to include that event.
Brilliant.
Moreover, the reference in paragraph 3 to paying "I paid the house rent on the 2d so don't worry about it." would be consistent with the period when the Oswalds were living on Neely Street
Along with when the photos of Walkers house were taken.
Along with when the rifle Money Order was sent and when Kliens sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box
Oswald purchased the money order for the rifle on March 12, the rifle was shipped on March 20
And the same approximate time that photos showing Oswald holding the same type of 40 inch Carcano in the Backyard of Neeley street were taken.
This still to be disproven HSCA photo collage shows the exact same rifle photographed at Neely street to be the same rifle found on the 6th floor.
Oswald was surrounded by incredible coincidences, that poor poor unlucky boy.
Oswald personally was aware of Edwin Walker and had a motive but the evidence linking him to the attempted murder of Walker is mostly circumstantial.
So while I think it’s reasonable for Oswald to be considered a suspect, I don’t think he would’ve been convicted based on the known evidence against him…
Oswald confessed to his own wife on the night of the attempt before the general public was even aware it had happened.
He had photos of Walker's home.
He left a note explaining to Marina what to do in case he was arrested or killed.
Oswald confessed to his own wife on the night of the attempt before the general public was even aware it had happened. He had photos of Walker's home. He left a note explaining to Marina what to do in case he was arrested or killed.
Marina said lots of things that were either inaccurate or outright wrong. She also had a very poor memory it appears.
And lastly, she wouldn’t have been able to testify against her husband had he lived to stand trial.
No, they were in Ruth Paine's garage.
Not completely true, but I doubt a prosecutor would have called her to testify even if she agreed to it.
Marina said a lot of things.
"We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world.” - Norman Redlich to Lee Rankin
Yet it should be noted that Redlich made his observation about Marina near the start of the Commission’s investigation in February of 1964, and even Redlich would later conclude that “based upon everything that I knew,” by “the time we were finished with our investigation, I would find her a credible witness.”
RHVB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overwhelming consensus in the conspiracy community is that Marina Oswald was not a truthful witness. This perception started mostly because of a very ill-advised statement by one of the Commission’s most distinguished assistant counsels, Norman Redlich, who said in a February 28, 1964, memorandum to General Counsel Rankin, “We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world.”141 These loose and incorrect words have been seized upon by Warren Commission critics to rebut Marina’s devastating testimony against Oswald. The Warren Commission staff, as indicated, consisted of very bright lawyers who graduated from the nation’s finest law schools. Most of them, however, did not have trial lawyer backgrounds* and, hence, were unaware how extremely common it is for even truthful witnesses to give inconsistent, contradictory, and incorrect testimony. And witnesses, of course, flat-out lie all the time on the witness stand. The late Francis L. Wellman, a distinguished member of the New York Bar, once observed, “Scarcely a trial is conducted in which perjury does not appear in more or less flagrant form.” In fact, perjury is so common that instead of being surprised by it, seasoned prosecutors expect it.
Redlich was a very bright and highly respected professor at New York University School of Law at the time he was appointed to the Warren Commission staff, but he had never been inside a courtroom, at least as a trial lawyer,† and therefore didn’t have any framework of reference for the inconsistencies in some of Marina’s testimony; hence, he erroneously concluded she had “repeatedly lied.” Yet it should be noted that Redlich made his observation about Marina near the start of the Commission’s investigation in February of 1964, and even Redlich would later conclude that “based upon everything that I knew,” by “the time we were finished with our investigation, I would find her a credible witness.”142
RHVB
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional clarification.
I am very familiar with Marina’s testimony, and I can say that based on the known record, she was every bit as consistent and truthful in her testimony as ninety-eight or ninety-nine out of a hundred witnesses during a trial. In fact, in view of her circumstances, she was surprisingly consistent and truthful. Here’s someone who, in 1964, testified for more than six days before the Warren Commission, her testimony in the Commission volumes consuming 215 pages. The pages are small print, so this translates to at least 500 pages of typical courtroom transcript. In addition, she was interviewed in depth, over and over again (an unbelievable forty-six times before her Warren Commission testimony) by the FBI and Secret Service. In 1978, she gave an additional 201 pages of testimony to the HSCA, and was interviewed in great depth by HSCA investigators. When you couple this prodigious, virtually unprecedented amount of interviews and testimony with the fact that at the time of her Warren Commission testimony she was but twenty-two years old, had a natural and instinctive desire to protect her husband as much as she reasonably could, was highly insecure living as an expatriate in a foreign country whose popular president had been murdered by her late husband,* and was operating under the substantial handicap of not speaking or understanding English and had to communicate through an interpreter (Chief Justice Warren describing her testimony as “laborious because of the interpreter”), it’s absolutely remarkable she did as well as she did.143 With typical witnesses at a trial giving just one-tenth of the vast amount of testimony Marina gave, I can guarantee you I normally would find many, many more examples of inconsistencies and discrepancies in their testimony than were present in Marina’s.
When I first read Redlich’s remark, I asked myself what was he referring to specifically? Such a question apparently also entered the mind of HSCA counsel Kenneth Klein, and when he asked Redlich, the latter answered, “Now, I have tried to recollect any specific matter that I may have had in my mind, and I have to say that I do not recall anything specific. It may have been, and one would have to go back into the investigatory report, it may have been that at first she may not have told the truth in connection with the attempted killing of General Walker. I am really just surmising she may have been asked if Oswald ever engaged in violence, and she may have at first said, ‘No,’ and then [she] brought out the fact about the General Walker shooting.”144 Although Redlich is unclear in his memory, what is very clear is that the first time Marina was asked, under oath, about the attempted murder of General Walker, she readily acknowledged her husband’s attempt to kill Walker.145†
The following represent the type of inconsistencies in Marina Oswald’s statements and testimony, as set forth by the HSCA: “Marina Oswald was subsequently questioned by the FBI about the [backyard] photos. She said they were taken at the Oswald home on Neely Street in Dallas, in the backyard. But Marina gave two different versions of when the pictures were taken. She first told the FBI it was in late February or in early March 1963…Nevertheless, in an FBI interview made after her initial appearance before the Warren Commission she said that the first time she ever saw the rifle was toward the end of March. She recalled taking the photos seven to ten days thereafter, in late March or early April. [Boy, that’s serious stuff. But I don’t remember what tie I wore yesterday, and am sometimes off by more than an entire year in trying to recollect the date of an event.] Other evidence available to the Warren Commission supported her later version.” And: “Marina Oswald, in addition to giving two different versions of when the backyard pictures were taken, gave different versions of the number of pictures taken. At first she testified that she took one picture. She later testified that she took two pictures.”146 (Wow. Again, this is serious stuff.)
The late Sylvia Meagher, who usually had absolutely no trouble with the hundreds upon hundreds of deliberate, flat-out lies told by her colleagues in the conspiracy theory community in their books, had no tolerance or understanding at all for someone like Marina, who, as indicated, answered literally thousands of questions by the authorities on and off the witness stand and didn’t even speak English. Meagher, nitpicking over minutia, did her best to gather up all the examples she could muster of the contradictions in Marina’s testimony, but failed miserably, only citing a small handful—all, I believe, while Marina was not under oath.147
The very few times Marina was caught in a lie were when she understandably was trying to protect her husband shortly after the assassination. An example is her lie (not under oath) to the FBI, which she subsequently admitted to the Warren Commission, that she had no knowledge that Oswald had taken a trip to Mexico,148 probably thinking this would somehow be incriminating to him in view of his having instructed her not to tell anyone.149 (She told the Warren Commission that she did “not like [the FBI] too much. I didn’t want to be too sincere with them.”)150 But when someone does the opposite and incriminates a loved one (as Marina’s testimony before the Warren Commission did concerning the night before, and the morning of, the assassination), there’s hardly any reason to disbelieve what that person says. In fact, it could be said that if someone’s lies are almost always in favor of another individual, this only increases the former’s credibility when he or she says something damaging about that person.
RHVB
And here's Redlich comments on the "Single Bullet Theory"
Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the single-bullet theory and he said "no, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously." When asked whom he meant by "we", he said "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." Specter did not respond to Bugliosi's request for a clarification on the issue. Reclaiming history: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Vincent Bugliosi (W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2007) Endnotes, pp. 301-6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory
JohnM
What a load of self-serving BS.\
Without Marina's testimony, the WC wouldn't have been able to make any kind of case against Oswald at all, so of course they considered her to be credible.
The same goes for Markham, who they called a screwball, yet still relied on her as their key witness.
It's pathethic.
\
Golly Gosh Martin, isn't that a bit of an overreaction? All I was doing was putting Redlich's early naïve comment into perspective as compared to his later conclusions.
As for the "screwball" comment by not "they" but the singular Ball, I think in context of his debate with Mark Lane, Ball was just being sarcastic.
JohnM
What a load of self-serving BS.
Howard Willens, on pp. 91-92 of his book “History Will Prove Us Right”, writes the following interesting passages:Admittedly I'm an amateur at at this (I'm going to assume everyone reading this is one too; but maybe not) but if I'm going to frame Oswald for shooting Walker and plant a note pointing to his act I'm going to put IN THE NOTE that he went to shoot Walker. Why manufacture a fake note and not explicitly include that element in the phony document?
Oswald’s note wasn’t his only link to the Walker shooting. Investigators had found photographs of the general’s home among Oswald’s possessions, and firearms identification experts told the commission that the bullet recovered at the Walker scene was the same type of ammunition used in the assassination. On the commission staff, we thought that the Walker incident provided strong circumstantial evidence that Oswald had the determination and mental capacity required to plan an assassination and was willing to kill if he thought he had sufficient reason to do so. As to what those reasons were in the case of Walker, Marina Oswald told the commission that her husband thought the general “was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that might be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives.”13
At this early stage of our investigation, we were struck by certain aspects of the Walker attempt that might shed light on Oswald’s culpability in President Kennedy’s death. Many of the conspiracy theories about the assassination were based on the assumption that Oswald simply lacked the capacity to shoot the president without the assistance of others. As the details of the Walker attempt unfolded, we came to believe that some characteristics of Oswald’s behavior relating to the Walker incident challenged this assumption.
Oswald Planned Carefully: The notebook and photographs found in Oswald’s home indicated meticulous planning for Walker’s assassination. Oswald had studied Dallas bus routes, which he subsequently used. He took photographs of Walker’s house and possible locations for burying his rifle both before and after the attempt. And, of course, there was the note left for his wife with detailed instructions for her to follow in the event he did not return home.
Oswald Planned No Escape: Oswald faced the possibility that he might be apprehended for this attempt on Walker’s life. His note advised his wife where he would be imprisoned if he was captured. He also contemplated that he might die as a result of this plan, and advised his wife regarding the money he left for her, what bills had been paid, and the assistance that friends or the Red Cross might provide her in his absence.
Oswald Left a Historical Record: In his note Oswald advised his wife to send any information in the newspapers about him to the Soviet embassy, which he said “would come quickly to your aid once they know everything.” He posed for two pictures with his recently acquired rifle and pistol and copies of issues of The Worker and The Militant. Although he destroyed most of the notebook about his planning for the Walker attempt, he did not destroy the note that he left for his wife or some of the pictures that he had pasted in the notebook. He told her that he “wanted to leave a complete record so that all the details would be in it.” This concern for his place in history seemed to be an important factor to consider in assessing possible motivation for the Kennedy assassination.14
Oswald Acted Alone: The commission and staff were well aware by this time of the widespread public perception that Oswald might have been part of a conspiracy of some kind. It was important to us, therefore, that we found no indication that Oswald had any assistance in planning for this attempt on Walker’s life, in the attempt itself, or in its aftermath. His note to his wife and his conversations with her after the unsuccessful attempt never hinted of the involvement of anyone else. I am sure I was not alone in thinking: “This Walker incident is really interesting. With all the possibilities of conspiracy that have been swirling around the Kennedy assassination, Oswald seemed to have acted entirely on his own in the Walker case. Although it doesn’t prove anything about the Kennedy assassination, it certainly suggests that it could have been a lone operation as well.”
Howard Willens, on pp. 91-92 of his book “History Will Prove Us Right”, writes the following interesting passages:
Oswald’s note wasn’t his only link to the Walker shooting. Investigators had found photographs of the general’s home among Oswald’s possessions, and firearms identification experts told the commission that the bullet recovered at the Walker scene was the same type of ammunition used in the assassination. On the commission staff, we thought that the Walker incident provided strong circumstantial evidence that Oswald had the determination and mental capacity required to plan an assassination and was willing to kill if he thought he had sufficient reason to do so. As to what those reasons were in the case of Walker, Marina Oswald told the commission that her husband thought the general “was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that might be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives.”13
At this early stage of our investigation, we were struck by certain aspects of the Walker attempt that might shed light on Oswald’s culpability in President Kennedy’s death. Many of the conspiracy theories about the assassination were based on the assumption that Oswald simply lacked the capacity to shoot the president without the assistance of others. As the details of the Walker attempt unfolded, we came to believe that some characteristics of Oswald’s behavior relating to the Walker incident challenged this assumption.
Oswald Planned Carefully: The notebook and photographs found in Oswald’s home indicated meticulous planning for Walker’s assassination. Oswald had studied Dallas bus routes, which he subsequently used. He took photographs of Walker’s house and possible locations for burying his rifle both before and after the attempt. And, of course, there was the note left for his wife with detailed instructions for her to follow in the event he did not return home.
Oswald Planned No Escape: Oswald faced the possibility that he might be apprehended for this attempt on Walker’s life. His note advised his wife where he would be imprisoned if he was captured. He also contemplated that he might die as a result of this plan, and advised his wife regarding the money he left for her, what bills had been paid, and the assistance that friends or the Red Cross might provide her in his absence.
Oswald Left a Historical Record: In his note Oswald advised his wife to send any information in the newspapers about him to the Soviet embassy, which he said “would come quickly to your aid once they know everything.” He posed for two pictures with his recently acquired rifle and pistol and copies of issues of The Worker and The Militant. Although he destroyed most of the notebook about his planning for the Walker attempt, he did not destroy the note that he left for his wife or some of the pictures that he had pasted in the notebook. He told her that he “wanted to leave a complete record so that all the details would be in it.” This concern for his place in history seemed to be an important factor to consider in assessing possible motivation for the Kennedy assassination.14
Oswald Acted Alone: The commission and staff were well aware by this time of the widespread public perception that Oswald might have been part of a conspiracy of some kind. It was important to us, therefore, that we found no indication that Oswald had any assistance in planning for this attempt on Walker’s life, in the attempt itself, or in its aftermath. His note to his wife and his conversations with her after the unsuccessful attempt never hinted of the involvement of anyone else. I am sure I was not alone in thinking: “This Walker incident is really interesting. With all the possibilities of conspiracy that have been swirling around the Kennedy assassination, Oswald seemed to have acted entirely on his own in the Walker case. Although it doesn’t prove anything about the Kennedy assassination, it certainly suggests that it could have been a lone operation as well.”
Although it doesn’t prove anything about the Kennedy assassination
Enough said Thumb1:
Admittedly I'm an amateur at at this (I'm going to assume everyone reading this is one too; but maybe not) but if I'm going to frame Oswald for shooting Walker and plant a note pointing to his act I'm going to put IN THE NOTE that he went to shoot Walker. Why manufacture a fake note and not explicitly include that element in the phony document?
Vincent Bugliosi doesn't mention Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination attempt of General Walker in his 53 pieces of evidence against Oswald but in Bugliosi's Reclaiming History's very important chapter on Motive, the Walker murder attempt gets star billing.
Admittedly I'm an amateur at at this (I'm going to assume everyone reading this is one too; but maybe not) but if I'm going to frame Oswald for shooting Walker and plant a note pointing to his act I'm going to put IN THE NOTE that he went to shoot Walker. Why manufacture a fake note and not explicitly include that element in the phony document?
The usual suspects will not start their hand waving and diversions from the point.
but if I'm going to frame Oswald for shooting Walker and plant a note pointing to his act I'm going to put IN THE NOTE that he went to shoot Walker. Why manufacture a fake note and not explicitly include that element in the phony document?
We're supposed to be believe that the same guy who:
- brought a long paper bag to work
- successfully hit the President who was sitting in a moving car from a distance
- left his rifle at the crime scene
Also:
- traveled miles to Edwin Walker's home with a rifle without being seen by any witnesses
- shot at Walker but missed
- brought his rifle back home (traveled a few miles each way) without being seen by any witnesses
Help me make sense of the inconsistency. :-\
LHO very well MAY have attempted to kill Edwin Walker but the evidence implicating him in that crime is far from a slam dunk. In fact, there's really no evidence that directly connects Oswald to the Walker shooting.
Help me make sense of the inconsistency. :-\
- brought a long paper bag to work
- traveled miles to Edwin Walker's home with a rifle without being seen by any witnesses
- successfully hit the President who was sitting in a moving car from a distance
- shot at Walker but missed
- left his rifle at the crime scene
- brought his rifle back home (traveled a few miles each way) without being seen by any witnesses
In fact, there's really no evidence that directly connects Oswald to the Walker shooting.
Sure. But there's more commonalities than you think.
He wasn't seen with a rifle at both events.
At both locations Oswald's first shot missed.
Do you have proof that Oswald took his rifle home from the Walker residence?
Marina who is the only witness we have, gave the superfluous information that Oswald did leave his rifle near to the Walker residence.
Amongst Oswald's possessions were multiple photos taken of Walkers house which were taken a month before the assassination attempt and were taken with the same camera that took Oswald's Neely street backyard photos.
The "Walker note" gave details to Marina on what to do after Oswald committed a deed that could lead to his imprisonment or death. Also the Neely street March rent was paid on the 2nd which is what was written in the note. The April rent was paid on the 2nd or 3rd.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8PVRQxJ0/Oswald-and-Walker.jpg)
An examination of certain construction work appearing in the background of this photograph revealed that the picture was taken between March 8 and 12, 1963, and most probably on either March 9 or March 10.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html
(https://i.postimg.cc/ncgthYxg/ce-2-walker.jpg)
(https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/lee-harvey-oswald.jpeg/@@images/image/large)
JohnM
He wasn't seen with a rifle at both events.
So, you agree that there is no evidence that puts C2766 in Oswald's hands at 12:30 on 11/22/63.... Thumb1:
Amongst Oswald's possessions were multiple photos taken of Walkers house which were taken a month before the assassination attempt
More "evidence" from Ruth Paine's garage..... the gift that keeps on giving
and were taken with the same camera that took Oswald's Neely street backyard photos.
You mean the camera that was completely missed during other searches and then found in Ruth Paine's garage, by Irving Police Detective John McCabe, on February 19, 1964?
Another example of evidence suddenly turning up when it is needed, much like the palmprint on Lt Day's evidence card....
So, you agree that there is no evidence that puts C2766 in Oswald's hands at 12:30 on 11/22/63.... Thumb1:
You mean the camera that was completely missed during other searches and then found in Ruth Paine's garage, by Irving Police Detective John McCabe, on February 19, 1964?
You've deliberately taken my comment out of context, I was answering a response clearly referring to the lead up.
How does that alter the fact that the exact same camera that took the Neely street backyard photos took the photos of Walkers house, eight months before the assassination??
JohnM
- brought a long paper bag to work
- successfully hit the President who was sitting in a moving car from a distance
He wasn't seen with a rifle at both events.
JohnM
How does that alter the fact that the exact same camera that took the Neely street backyard photos took the photos of Walkers house, eight months before the assassination??
Good question. Marina didn't have a clue how that camera worked, which leaves open the possibility that somebody else used that camera to make the incriminating pictures and Marina did in fact only make one BY photo (as she said she did and now lost to history) with a different camera.
Is that speculation? Sure it is, but it would fit the known facts.
that somebody else used that camera to make the incriminating pictures
Both sets of photos taken respectively at the Walker residence and the Neely street backyard, were taken 8 months before as established by the construction work seen near the Walker house and the plant growth at Neely street, and since you are reduced to speculation could you kindly speculate how these two disparate events were simultaneously planned so far in advance?
JohnM
He wasn't seen with a rifle at both events.
Do you have proof that Oswald took his rifle home from the Walker residence?
Marina who is the only witness we have, gave the superfluous information that Oswald did leave his rifle near to the Walker residence.
Amongst Oswald's possessions were multiple photos taken of Walkers house which were taken a month before the assassination attempt and were taken with the same camera that took Oswald's Neely street backyard photos.
The "Walker note" gave details to Marina on what to do after Oswald committed a deed that could lead to his imprisonment or death.
The DeMorenschildts gave testimony about the rifle after the Walker incident that contradicted Marina's story. They claimed they saw Oswald's rifle in his home at the time when Marina said he hadn't gone back to Walker's neighborhood to retrieve it yet.
So someone lied or misremembered some details. It's impossible to know who forgot or lied but Marina got a number of details wrong in her testimonies on other issues so...
Mostly useless as evidence in the Walker incident for reasons that have already been addressed.
“Established by plant growth”.
LOL.
Marina said lots of things that were either inaccurate or outright wrong. She also had a very poor memory it appears.
And lastly, she wouldn’t have been able to testify against her husband had he lived to stand trial.
This is a common CTer trope. Marina certainly couldn't remember minor details of events or exact dates months after the fact. Almost no one could. It was only in retrospect that such details became important. She also had an incentive to be vague about evidence incriminating Oswald. She was subject to criticism that maybe she should have been a little more concerned with his activities and bears some responsibility for what happened by not reporting him. To the extent that we know of any efforts by Marina to cover up evidence, it was to protect Oswald not incriminate him. It borders on the incredible that CTers cite such incidents to suggest she was lying to incriminate Oswald.
In terms of the Walker attempt, when her husband came home late at night and told her that he has just tried to assassinate someone, that is something to be remembered. Just because Marina couldn't remember specific dates of minor events doesn't mean she had a poor memory or couldn't remember being told that Oswald tried to murder Walker. The fact remains that Oswald confessed this crime to his own wife. He did so before the public was aware of any such crime. There were recon photos of the Walker house found in his possession to corroborate this story. He left a note telling Marina what to do in the event of his arrest or death that night. What was so dangerous that Oswald anticipated being killed or arrested for on that night? His typing class? This one is a slam dunk.
If it was a "slam dunk" it would convince reasonable sane people. It doesn't!
He wasn't seen with a rifle at both events.You mean that there is no "direct" evidence that puts C2766 in Oswald's hands. There is plenty of evidence. More than enough for a jury of reasonable people to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald fired three shots at the President's limousine with it.
So, you agree that there is no evidence that puts C2766 in Oswald's hands at 12:30 on 11/22/63.... Thumb1:
Yawn! The plant to Oswald's left has shown considerable growth and if not planted in the meantime, the plant to Oswald's right has grown from virtually nothing and has lost all it's leaves.
This is a common CTer trope. Marina certainly couldn't remember minor details of events or exact dates months after the fact. Almost no one could. It was only in retrospect that such details became important. She also had an incentive to be vague about evidence incriminating Oswald. She was subject to criticism that maybe she should have been a little more concerned with his activities and bears some responsibility for what happened by not reporting him. To the extent that we know of any efforts by Marina to cover up evidence, it was to protect Oswald not incriminate him. It borders on the incredible that CTers cite such incidents to suggest she was lying to incriminate Oswald.
In terms of the Walker attempt, when her husband came home late at night and told her that he has just tried to assassinate someone, that is something to be remembered. Just because Marina couldn't remember specific dates of minor events doesn't mean she had a poor memory or couldn't remember being told that Oswald tried to murder Walker. The fact remains that Oswald confessed this crime to his own wife. He did so before the public was aware of any such crime. There were recon photos of the Walker house found in his possession to corroborate this story. He left a note telling Marina what to do in the event of his arrest or death that night. What was so dangerous that Oswald anticipated being killed or arrested for on that night? His typing class? This one is a slam dunk.
You mean that there is no "direct" evidence that puts C2766 in Oswald's hands. There is plenty of evidence. More than enough for a jury of reasonable people to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald fired three shots at the President's limousine with it.
Check the history books.
You mean that there is no "direct" evidence that puts C2766 in Oswald's hands. There is plenty of evidence. More than enough for a jury of reasonable people to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald fired three shots at the President's limousine with it.
And this somehow gives you a precise date when the photo was taken. LOL.
Not even close.
Not without a massive amount of assumptions that a reasonable person would never make.
There is plenty of evidence.
What evidence would that be?
Can you show that;
- the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage?
- Oswald made the paper bag found at the TSBD and took it with him to Irving on Thursday evening?
- the paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carry on Friday morning contained the MC rifle?
- Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12.30 PM when the shots were fired?
- Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 to 90 seconds after the last shot?
The answer to all these questions is a simple one; No you can't.
When is someone going to explain how C2766 which was sent from Klein's to Oswald's PO Box ended up on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace?
JohnM
How about this;
Why don't you first show conclusively that C2766 was actually sent to Oswald's PO box. All I have seen so far is a handwritten serial number on an unauthenticated photocopy of an internal Klein's document.
If you can't answer my question just say so.
JohnM
The question is an invalid one and requires no answer until you show conclusively that C2766 was actually sent to Oswald's PO box.
Not without a massive amount of assumptions that a reasonable person would never make.
There is plenty of evidence.
What evidence would that be?
Can you show that;
- the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage?
- Oswald made the paper bag found at the TSBD and took it with him to Irving on Thursday evening?
- the paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carry on Friday morning contained the MC rifle?
- Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12.30 PM when the shots were fired?
- Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 to 90 seconds after the last shot?
The answer to all these questions is a simple one; No you can't.
If you can't answer my question just say so.
JohnM
Does this mean that you can't show that;
- the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage?
- Oswald made the paper bag found at the TSBD and took it with him to Irving on Thursday evening?
- the paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carry on Friday morning contained the MC rifle?
- Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12.30 PM when the shots were fired?
- Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 to 90 seconds after the last shot?
No wonder you needed a diversion.... :D :D :D :D
It's ok Martin, you can't answer my question and that's fine. Thumb1:
JohnM
That doesn't come close to answering my question.
JohnM
Just too bad that you can't show that C2766 was ever sent to Oswald's P.O. box. But thank you for confirming that you can't! Thumb1:
Why all the endless diversions?
I asked a simple question and I would like a simple answer.
JohnM
No, you asked a stupid question based on something the can't prove.
Of course you want a simple answer, because that's the only kind of answer you can process. Next time ask a 5 years old.
Why the hostility?
I asked a reasonable question which you don't want to answer, why not!
JohnM
What hostility? Do you consider anything that you don't agree with or understand hostile?
A "reasonable" question which includes a part you can not prove and thus is not factual, is not a question that needs to be answered.
I said from the very start I was perfectly ok with your lack of a response and that still stands. Thumb1:
JohnM
Not without a massive amount of assumptions that a reasonable person would never make.Your statement was that there was no evidence. You obviously don't find the evidence persuasive. But that is not the test of whether such evidence exists.
There is plenty of evidence.
What evidence would that be?
Can you show that;
- the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage?
- Oswald made the paper bag found at the TSBD and took it with him to Irving on Thursday evening?
- the paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carry on Friday morning contained the MC rifle?
- Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12.30 PM when the shots were fired?
- Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 to 90 seconds after the last shot?
The answer to all these questions is a simple one; No you can't.
Your statement was that there was no evidence. You obviously don't find the evidence persuasive. But that is not the test of whether such evidence exists.
There is abundant evidence from which one could conclude that c2766 was Oswald's gun, that he brought it to work that day, that his conduct after the assassination shows consciousness of guilt and an attempt to avoid capture and that the Walker attempt using the same gun has elements of similar fact to the JFK assassination. From this, and all the other circumstances one can easily infer that Oswald was the assassin. You are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine. But that does not make the evidence go away. It is all still there.
Must be a different motive for Oswald shooting at JFK vs shooting at Walker.
Because JFK demonstrated disdain for Walker by forcing Walker to resign and having him committed to an insane asylum.
Not only that , but JFK demonstrated by choosing a black SS agent that JFK was not a segregationist , exactly the opposite of General Walker.
And JFK demonstrated rather clearly a “hands off” policy towards Castro/Cuba ( post 62 missile crisis resolution).and further publicly stated willingness to be cooperative with the USSR in space exploration.
Surely Oswald who read papers and was informed of the political situation, must have been pleased with a POTUS demonstrating basically the same perspective that Oswald had himself ?
So the motive (if there is one) for Oswald to shoot at JFK cannot be because Oswald perceived JFK to be the same “fascist” threat that Oswald perceived Walker to be.
Hi Zeon, I think that Oswald's(Hidell) main motivation was his wanting to be accepted as a Marxist and any political leader that spoke ill of Fidel Castro was put on Oswald's hit list, CT's claim that the left Kennedy and the extreme right Walker had no connection but I believe that in Oswald's eyes, what connected Kennedy and Walker was their dislike of the Cuban regime.
Fritz was the one of the last people to spend considerable time with Oswald.
Mr. DULLES. Have you any views of your own as to motive from your talks with him? Did you get any clues as to possible motive in assassinating the President?
Mr. FRITZ. I can only tell you what little I know now. I am sure that we have people in Washington here that can tell far more than I can.
Mr. DULLES. Well, you saw the man and the others didn't see the man.
Mr. FRITZ. I got the impression, I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
(At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)
Mr. FRITZ. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, I think he had--he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that.
Oswald in New Orleans handing out "Hands off Cuba" leaflets
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREIgle_n5Ym3Lqvxrwg9MsOnZBFGg2wBDjTVE5nFQA6LF8x8Q&s)
(https://neworleanshistorical.org/files/fullsize/9838d4cff8e68d9b73e4a4bcf9b9d07a.jpg)
Oswald's "Fair play for Cuba" membership card where he was also the Chapter President.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vByVsPVC/oswald-fair-play-for-cuba-member.jpg)
Three days before Oswald killed Kennedy, there was this newspaper article in the Dallas Times Herald of Kennedy saying that it would be a happy day if the Castro government was ousted.
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6JFJZ6v/WH-Vol26-0053a.gif)
Oswald's personal possessions had a number of positive Castro literature.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK5mMHNL/oswald-literature.jpg)
A week after the Dallas Herald Times reported that Walker wanted to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba" Oswald ordered his rifle and not long after Oswald took surveillance photos of General Walkers house and a little later Oswald tried to kill General Walker.
In February 1963, Walker joined Billy Hargis on an anti-communist tour named "Operation Midnight Ride".[24] In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba."[25] Seven days later, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a Carcano rifle by mail, using the alias "A. Hidell".[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ822SnJYZCpzMys89HFCy5YUyGSz8wNb3-gg&usqp=CAU)
Just my 2 cents, but do the Math!
JohnM
Walker was more famous (or infamous) in 1963 for being a pro-Segregation activist.
Oswald no doubt was aware of the riot that General Walker incited at Ole Miss.
In contrast, LHO, opposed segregation. Civil Rights was one of the issues where Lee was said to have agreed with Kennedy politically. At the School Book Depository, he was known to eat his lunch in the break room used by Black and Latino employees, not the other break that most of the White employees used. His own subtle protest against the segregation of Dallas in 1963.
So if Oswald did attempt to kill Walker, it’s probable that it had more to do with Civil Rights than Walker’s views of Cuba/Castro.
Oswald clearly had a motive for targeting Walker and an interest in Walker according to George DeMorenschildt. There’s just a lack of direct evidence connecting Oswald to the Walker shooting…
Must be a different motive for Oswald shooting at JFK vs shooting at Walker.
Because JFK demonstrated disdain for Walker by forcing Walker to resign and having him committed to an insane asylum.
Not only that , but JFK demonstrated by choosing a black SS agent that JFK was not a segregationist , exactly the opposite of General Walker.
And JFK demonstrated rather clearly a “hands off” policy towards Castro/Cuba ( post 62 missile crisis resolution).and further publicly stated willingness to be cooperative with the USSR in space exploration.
Surely Oswald who read papers and was informed of the political situation, must have been pleased with a POTUS demonstrating basically the same perspective that Oswald had himself ?
So the motive (if there is one) for Oswald to shoot at JFK cannot be because Oswald perceived JFK to be the same “fascist” threat that Oswald perceived Walker to be.
Zeon,
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.
Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.
While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.
Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.
During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.
In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.
The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.
On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing.
I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that."
The image below is from the
Wichita Falls Record News
March 7, 1963
(Image courtesy of Dale Myers)
(https://i.imgur.com/IimYaGom.jpg)
Hi Jon, I still stand by my observation and I didn't even mention Oswald's failed attempt to get through to Cuba by way of Mexico but thanks for the additional insight and I concede that not every issue is black and white and the shade of grey that you mentioned is a worthwhile contribution.
Btw do you have any examples where Oswald tried to befriend any Black or Latino employees? and I thought that the Domino room which I assume you were talking about was generally for the warehouse staff and the upper 2nd floor lunchroom which was occasionally frequented by some warehouse staff but was primarily for the office staff?
JohnM
Where did I say "precise date"?
But I can see how you misinterpreted my loosely structured statement.
At the end of the day, whoever was planning to use the Neeley street background as a template for the "fake" backyard photos had to have a plan in place many months in advance.
If you can't answer my question just say so.
The question is an invalid one and requires no answer until you show conclusively that C2766 was actually sent to Oswald's PO box.
Your statement was that there was no evidence. You obviously don't find the evidence persuasive. But that is not the test of whether such evidence exists.
There is abundant evidence from which one could conclude that c2766 was Oswald's gun, that he brought it to work that day, that his conduct after the assassination shows consciousness of guilt and an attempt to avoid capture and that the Walker attempt using the same gun has elements of similar fact to the JFK assassination. From this, and all the other circumstances one can easily infer that Oswald was the assassin. You are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine. But that does not make the evidence go away. It is all still there.
Who claimed that anybody planned to use the Neeley street background as a template for fake backyard photos?
Good question. Marina didn't have a clue how that camera worked, which leaves open the possibility that somebody else used that camera to make the incriminating pictures and Marina did in fact only make one BY photo (as she said she did and now lost to history) with a different camera.
Is that speculation? Sure it is, but it would fit the known facts.
Oswald confessed to the Walker shooting. It borders on the incredible that anyone would still dispute his involvement. And there would be absolutely no need for any conspirator to link Oswald to another assassination attempt to frame him for the JFK assassination. Particularly after Oswald was already dead and his guilt in the JFK assassination was accepted by law enforcement. Unreal. Imagine Oswald's reaction to the CTers who are trying to rob him of the only accomplishments of his pathetic life.
to put the already dead Oswald in a bad light,...
After murdering two men, Oswald had already placed himself in a bad light, no further help was required!
JohnM
Thank you for sharing your humble opinion. Too bad you can't back it up with actual real evidence.
After murdering two men, Oswald had already placed himself in a bad light, no further help was required!
JohnM
And attempting murder of another man. After all this is a thread titled “The Walker Case.” 8)
No, there's a mountain of "real evidence" that was presented by TWO different investigations a decade and a half apart, the fact that you don't accept it is your problem.
JohnM
Yes, you are so right Charles!
In fact the Warren Commission made the Walker Note their "Number 1 Exhibit"!
(https://i.postimg.cc/mgXB7VT9/walker-note-ce1.jpg)
JohnM
The appeal to authority fallacy.
"Evidence" presented by two investigations is like evidence presented by a prosecutor who does not allow a defense counsel challenge it. It only has propaganda value.
JohnM
No, there's a mountain of "real evidence" that was presented by TWO different investigations a decade and a half apart,
Yes, you are so right Charles!
In fact the Warren Commission made the Walker Note their "Number 1 Exhibit"!
And beyond The HSCA confirming "Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President"
Martin’s post said nothing about anybody planning to use the Neeley street background as a template for fake backyard photos. Maybe you need to read it again, more slowly.
He didn’t say anything about someone using the background as a template for fake photos. That was all you.
Maybe you could try reading what he actually writes instead of trying to invent “where he is leading”. Or ask him and actually pay attention to the answer.
Who claimed that anybody planned to use the Neeley street background as a template for fake backyard photos?
That's easy: they could have taken the doctored figure image and pasted it onto an earlier picture of the backyard, using the same background for each picture but creating small differences via keystoning.
but now it's time to focus on your original post, here's a more realistic established neutral "expert", who's opinion has been used to support backyard photo arguments and here Thompson attempts to definitively answer your original question.
. . .
Also famous "scholar" quoter Michael T Griffith makes the following "observation" about pasting Oswald onto an earlier "template". It's weird that you weren't aware of this common refutation but whatever it takes, eh John!
What do Mr. Thompson and Michael Griffith have to do with it?
Who claimed that anybody planned to use the Neeley street background as a template for fake backyard photos?
Maybe you could try reading what he actually writes instead of trying to invent “where he is leading”. Or ask him and actually pay attention to the answer.
Anyway, this is going nowhere and we can endlessly debate "Martin's" vague speculative post and ask "Martin" who's heavily biased to further elaborate which we must agree will obviously be a waste of time and achieve nothing,
JohnM
Classic "Mytton". It demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that "Mytton" (once again) made up something that I am supposed you have said, but didn't. It also shows he isn't the least bit interested in asking me about what he now calls "Martin's vague speculative post" because he already knows I am going to call him out for outright lying, so he just calls me "heavily biased to further elaborate".
Now that John has him pinned down (I guarantee you he will deny that), "Mytton" decides to move the goalposts to divert attention away from his made up arguments by bringing up a so-called "expert" (quotations marks added by "Mytton"!).
How somebody like "Mytton" can be taken seriously is a complete mystery to me.
You can't be serious, your following question is the very foundation of this entire discussion and they both answered your question with flying colours. Next!
In the memo, the Walker bullet is item #5 out of 37 items listed. I didn’t see a link to Hoover’s reply to this memo included in the K & K article. And I am beginning a search for this reply. But I usually have a difficult time finding these things. So, if anyone can help direct me to the reply I would appreciate it very much.
Charles, I believe the response to this memo is the anonymously written (and factually disputed) letter known as CE 2011.
And you responded by quoting a post from Martin that said nothing of the kind. Now you’re trying to cover your tracks by pretending you meant something else the entire time.
Nice try.
Everyone can see your question and I've replied with 3 examples, 1 you dispute and the other two, Griffith and Thompson more than adequately answer your question. Nuff said.
Everyone can see how highly dishonest you are:
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/mytton-dishonesty.jpg)
Question about the newspaper article portraying JFK as contemplating taking out the Castro regime: Did Oswald read that paper or would that same news have been in a Dallas paper that Oswald would have read?
If JFK was perceived by the Joint Chiefs of Staff like Curtis Lemay as being compromised and weak towards the USSR, and the CIA considered JFK a national security threat, and the view of some media was that JFK had basically sold out to Kruschev in the 62 missile crisis, and the Cuban Americans were angry about JFKs BOP fiasco, and the right wing extremists like Milteer were calling JFK a traitor , then it seems that a Marxist (as Oswald described himself) , would have considered JFK favorably as all the opposition that Oswald also opposed was against JFK?
But I guess there is the “Kook” factor that a person who may have been prone to bipolar disorder might go into some kind of rage over reading a newspaper article that makes JFK seem to be caving to his right wing critics ( whom were Oswald’s nemesis) , thus Oswald decides he needs to kill JFK for being a “flipflopper”?
Question about the newspaper article portraying JFK as contemplating taking out the Castro regime: Did Oswald read that paper or would that same news have been in a Dallas paper that Oswald would have read?
If JFK was perceived by the Joint Chiefs of Staff like Curtis Lemay as being compromised and weak towards the USSR, and the CIA considered JFK a national security threat, and the view of some media was that JFK had basically sold out to Kruschev in the 62 missile crisis, and the Cuban Americans were angry about JFKs BOP fiasco, and the right wing extremists like Milteer were calling JFK a traitor , then it seems that a Marxist (as Oswald described himself) , would have considered JFK favorably as all the opposition that Oswald also opposed was against JFK?
But I guess there is the “Kook” factor that a person who may have been prone to bipolar disorder might go into some kind of rage over reading a newspaper article that makes JFK seem to be caving to his right wing critics ( whom were Oswald’s nemesis) , thus Oswald decides he needs to kill JFK for being a “flipflopper”?
Oswald had to have known that LBJ was the CONSERVATIVE anti communist Democrat whom JFK did not particularly like, and whom JFK had picked as a VP only to appease the staunch Military Industrialist advocates in the Democrat party.
So beside it being illogical for the Marxist Oswald to be opposed to a President to whom virtually ALL the anti Communist and /Segregationists were angry at, it’s even more so , considering that killing JFK only places the MORE conservative more warmonger anti communist LBJ in charge.
True. At the time, Johnson was viewed as more Hawkish than Kennedy. And no one could’ve predicted that Johnson, who formerly supported segregation, would’ve passed the greatest Civil Rights legislation in US history (after the Emancipation Proclamation).
So it’s not easy to reach the conclusion that Oswald had a political motive for shooting Kennedy.
Shooting the president is not a rational act. Therefore, there cannot be one tidy motive or explanation to explain it. There were likely a host of political and physiological motivations that led Oswald to commit this act. Some which were probably not known even to him. He was an angry guy who wanted to be noticed. He had strong political beliefs. He defected to the USSR. JFK, as President, was representative of a society that marginalized Oswald and opposed his political system (Marxism). He did not target JFK specifically. He took advantage of a quirk of fate. JFK's motorcade passed directly by his building. I don't think he otherwise would ever have sought out and killed JFK. But he shoots any person who is president under that circumstance. If it had been Nixon, LBJ, or someone else riding by in the car as President of the United States, Oswald would have assassinated them. It was a convergence of various factors. The evidence proves beyond any doubt that he did so even if his motive can never be known with certainty.
Shooting the president is not a rational act.
There were likely a host of political and physiological motivations that led Oswald to commit this act. Some which were probably not known even to him.
Shooting the president is not a rational act. Therefore, there cannot be one tidy motive or explanation to explain it. There were likely a host of political and physiological motivations that led Oswald to commit this act. Some which were probably not known even to him. He was an angry guy who wanted to be noticed. He had strong political beliefs. He defected to the USSR. JFK, as President, was representative of a society that marginalized Oswald and opposed his political system (Marxism). He did not target JFK specifically. He took advantage of a quirk of fate. JFK's motorcade passed directly by his building. I don't think he otherwise would ever have sought out and killed JFK. But he shoots any person who is president under that circumstance. If it had been Nixon, LBJ, or someone else riding by in the car as President of the United States, Oswald would have assassinated them. It was a convergence of various factors. The evidence proves beyond any doubt that he did so even if his motive can never be known with certainty.
In no way am I saying that I condone political violence but there can be rational arguments to justify assassinating heads of state in some circumstances.
The people who think Oswald was motivated by politics have failed to establish what he possibly hoped to achieve by assassinating JFK. Based on the testimony of Capt. Will Fritz, Oswald was aware that US policies towards Cuba were unlikely to change under Lyndon Johnson. So we can conclude that Oswald was politically savvy enough to know that assassinating JFK wouldn't have helped Fidel Castro.
There's no evidence that Oswald suffered from mental illness or was experiencing a psychiatric episode at the time of the JFK assassination. What was most disturbing to the people who investigated Oswald after the assassination was how calm he was given the circumstances. No one claims that he acted erraticly at any point after he was in police custody after the assassination.
So it's difficult to conclude that he did it because he was suffering from some sort of mental condition at the time.
Let's leave it to his own wife to explain what happened:
Let's leave it to his own wife to explain what happened:
What happened when Lee came home on the night of April 10,
1963?
Mrs. PORTER. He was very pale, as I said, and he was out of
breath, and I was asking, I mean asked him to explain about the
note that he left for me, and asked him what happened, and he
said that he just tried to shoot General Walker. I asked him who
General Walker was. I mean how dare you to go and claim somebody's life, and he said "Well, what would you say if somebody got
rid of Hitler at the right time?
She also claimed that Lee tried to kill Richard Nixon. The Warren Commission was unable to corroborate the details of her claim about Nixon and there's no direct evidence linking Oswald to the Walker shooting.
Marina was unreliable as a witness and desperation is the only reason to cite her testimony...
She confused Nixon for LBJ because they were both VP. Her story is consistent in every particular when linked to LBJ's Dallas visit. She confirmed that she had never heard of LBJ before the assassination.
There is absolutely no reason to question her confirmation that Oswald confessed to the Walker shooting.
That's not a minor detail. Aside from that, she couldn't remember lots of other key details.
Initially, Marina claimed she prevented Lee from killing Nixon by locking him in the bathroom for hours. But that was implausible and she couldn't describe basic details about the incident to the Warren Commission:
Mr Rankin :Do you recall the bathroom, how the door closes? Does it close into the bathroom on Neely Street or from the outside in?
Mrs Oswald :I don’t remember now. I don’t remember. I only remember that it was something to do with the bathroom.
Mr Rankin :Did you lock him into the bathroom?
Mrs Oswald :I can’t remember precisely.
Mr Rankin :Do you recall how the locks were on the bathroom door there?
Mrs Oswald :I can’t recall. We had several apartments and I might be confusing one apartment with the other.
Mr Rankin :Is it your testimony that you made it impossible for him to get out if he wanted to?
Mrs Oswald :I don’t remember.
http://22november1963.org.uk/did-oswald-try-to-kill-richard-nixon
The lack of corroborating evidence and Marina's poor memory are two reasons to discount her claim about Lee confessing to attempting to kill Edwin Walker.
Maybe she mistook Walker for someone else the same way, according to you, she mistook Nixon for LBJ.
That's not a minor detail. Aside from that, she couldn't remember lots of other key details.
Initially, Marina claimed she prevented Lee from killing Nixon by locking him in the bathroom for hours. But that was implausible and she couldn't describe basic details about the incident to the Warren Commission:
Mr Rankin :Do you recall the bathroom, how the door closes? Does it close into the bathroom on Neely Street or from the outside in?
Mrs Oswald :I don’t remember now. I don’t remember. I only remember that it was something to do with the bathroom.
Mr Rankin :Did you lock him into the bathroom?
Mrs Oswald :I can’t remember precisely.
Mr Rankin :Do you recall how the locks were on the bathroom door there?
Mrs Oswald :I can’t recall. We had several apartments and I might be confusing one apartment with the other.
Mr Rankin :Is it your testimony that you made it impossible for him to get out if he wanted to?
Mrs Oswald :I don’t remember.
http://22november1963.org.uk/did-oswald-try-to-kill-richard-nixon
The lack of corroborating evidence and Marina's poor memory are two reasons to discount her claim about Lee confessing to attempting to kill Edwin Walker.
Maybe she mistook Walker for someone else the same way, according to you, she mistook Nixon for LBJ.
The lack of corroborating evidence and Marina's poor memory are two reasons to discount her claim about Lee confessing to attempting to kill Edwin Walker.
Why would you not consider that the note in Russian LHO reportedly left for Marina, The photographs of Walker’s home which were reportedly found among LHO’s belongings in Ruth Paine’s residence, the bullet recovered from Walker’s home, all as corroborating evidence of Marina’s sworn testimony? (The lame excuses that we are fixing to be subjected to are just plain silly.)
She confused Nixon for LBJ because they were both VP.
You think there was another sniper-type attack on April 10 that Marina mistook for Walker?
I stand by my view that LHO wouldn't have been convicted for attempted murder in the Walker case if he lived to stand trial. Marina wouldn't have been able to testify against him and there's no direct evidence connecting him to the crime.
unless you are suggesting Ruth Paine was the Walker shooter ad attempted to frame Oswald for the crime after his death.
- The note is undated and doesn't mention Walker. Which means it's worthless as evidence. I doubt it would've been admissible if Oswald went to trial for the Walker shooting.
- The photograph of Walker's home was found in Ruth Paine's home after LHO's death. It can't be proven that Oswald took the photo or brought it to her home.
Walker himself denied that the bullet in evidence is the bullet that was recovered from his home. He described a different bullet and the initial police reports described a 30 caliber bullet, not the type of bullet that was used with a Mannliche-Carcano.
I stand by my view that LHO wouldn't have been convicted for attempted murder in the Walker case if he lived to stand trial. Marina wouldn't have been able to testify against him and there's no direct evidence connecting him to the crime.
Lame excuse #1: - The note is undated and doesn't mention Walker. Which means it's worthless as evidence. I doubt it would've been admissible if Oswald went to trial for the Walker shooting.
The note was reportedly and apparently intended as a note to Marina informing her as to what to do in the event LHO doesn’t return back home. To serve this purpose, it would not require or, in my opinion, even be desired for the note to include any date or reference to Walker. No, this isn’t a signed confession. But even if it was, your lame excuse would be that it could be fake, even though there is no evidence that it was fake. To the contrary, the experts say LHO wrote it. And to be admissible, the person who found it would only need to testify to finding it and identifying it.
Lame excuse #2: - The photograph of Walker's home was found in Ruth Paine's home after LHO's death. It can't be proven that Oswald took the photo or brought it to her home.
If I remember correctly, the experts said that the same camera that took the infamous backyard photos took the Walker house photos, and Marina testified that they were originally in a notebook that LHO compiled and that she convinced LHO to destroy. But he apparently saved those photos.
Lame excuse #3: Walker himself denied that the bullet in evidence is the bullet that was recovered from his home. He described a different bullet and the initial police reports described a 30 caliber bullet, not the type of bullet that was used with a Mannliche-Carcano.
Walker himself eh? Damn, is he a ballistics expert (being in the military isn’t proper qualifications for a forensic ballistics expert BTW)? What is his evidence for such a claim? How many years had gone by before he said such a thing? All that is required is for the person who found it to identify it. This was done. And it is a 6.5 mm Carcano very similar in composition to the unfired bullet found in the chamber of the rifle found on the sixth floor and with the same rifling characteristics as a 6.5 mm Carcano.
I stand by my view that LHO wouldn't have been convicted for attempted murder in the Walker case if he lived to stand trial. Marina wouldn't have been able to testify against him and there's no direct evidence connecting him to the crime.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But since there could be no trial for a dead man, the fact finding WC did have Marina testify.
What difference does this make six decades later? Even if true, it wouldn't mean Oswald didn't still do it since a verdict in a criminal trial can be wrong or limited by the admissible evidence. In 2023, it matters only whether he did it or not. And the evidence is conclusive of the fact. We have access to Marina's testimony even if it could have been precluded by a marital privilege in a criminal trial context. We have his confession. We have recon photos of Walker's home. We have the note. Although they are found in the Paine's house that doesn't cast any doubt of them unless you are suggesting Ruth Paine was the Walker shooter ad attempted to frame Oswald for the crime after his death. They were found among Oswald's possessions. Baby June didn't commit this act.
What difference does this make six decades later?
Lame excuse #1:
I'm not making any "excuses". I'm pointing out the obvious lack of conclusive evidence implicating LHO in the attempted murder of General Walker.
If you know of any evidence that puts Oswald at the Walker crime scene and directly connects him to the crime, please share it.
Otherwise, it's just speculation...
Marina’s testimony, supported by the physical evidence (note, photos, bullet) directly connects LHO to the crime.
All that is required is for the person who found it to identify it. This was done.
But the note, photos, and bullet don’t connect anybody to any crime. So you’re left with Marina said so. And she wasn’t there.
Really? Where can we find his testimony to that effect?
Again, Marina’s testimony is supported by the physical evidence. And the physical evidence is supported by Marina’s testimony. Together they most definitely connect LHO to the crime. A jury would have to consider all of the evidence. This would be to help insure a fair trial. If we want to give the case a fair shake, we should keep this in mind when forming opinions.
By "physical evidence", do you mean the rifle and bullet? The evidence around bullet in the Walker case is inconclusive and of course, no one saw Oswald with a rifle at the crime scene.
Marina's claim that Lee tried to kill Nixon also lacked corroborating evidence. Because of that and other inconsistencies, any Defense attorney would've been able to shoot holes in her testimony (if she were allowed to testify against her husband).
------------------------
The bullet used in the attempted shooting of Walker was probably not the same type as those used in the JFK assassination. According to various newspaper accounts (e.g. ‘Walker Escapes Assassin’s Bullet’, New York Times, 12 April 1963, p.12), the Dallas police claimed that the bullet was a 30.06 calibre; the bullet shells from the Texas School Book Depository were 6.5mm. The Walker bullet was too severely deformed to allow a conclusive analysis of its pattern of grooves. A spectrographic examination by Henry Heilberger of the FBI laboratory found that the lead alloy in the bullet was different from that of bullet fragments found in President Kennedy’s car (FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62–109060–22).
The Walker bullet had been fired from a rifle powerful enough to send it through brickwork, which the Mannlicher–Carcano rifle was not. There is no evidence that Oswald ever had access to such a rifle.
Not only did the bullet and rifle have no association with Lee Harvey Oswald, but Edwin Walker was adamant that Commission Exhibit 573, the bullet offered in evidence, was not the one he had examined at the time of the shooting; see Justice Department Criminal Division File 62–117290–1473 for Walker’s correspondence with the Justice Department on this matter.
http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-oswald-shoot-general-edwin-walker
The physical evidence includes the note that experts testified that LHO wrote,
the Walker bullet which the experts testified is a Carcano 6.5 mm very close in composition to the bullet found in the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD
This is another example of the naysayers apparently accepting information without authentication.
There’s no proof that Oswald wrote the undated letter and it’s not physical or crime scene evidence.
There’s no conclusive evidence linking the Walker bullet to the JFK assassination bullets. Dr. Guinn, the HSCA’s expert, used bad/outdated methodology to draw his conclusions and his findings are widely rejected today.
https://www.deseret.com/2007/5/19/20019593/doubt-cast-on-lone-jfk-killer-theory
No. It’s another example of you grasping at straws.
There’s no proof that Oswald shot at Walker. He wouldn’t have been convicted by a jury based on the available evidence…
There’s no proof that Oswald wrote the undated letter and it’s not physical or crime scene evidence.
There’s no conclusive evidence linking the Walker bullet to the JFK assassination bullets. Dr. Guinn, the HSCA’s expert, used bad/outdated methodology to draw his conclusions and his findings are widely rejected today.
https://www.deseret.com/2007/5/19/20019593/doubt-cast-on-lone-jfk-killer-theory
No. It’s another example of you grasping at straws.
There’s no proof that Oswald shot at Walker. He wouldn’t have been convicted by a jury based on the available evidence…
The physical evidence includes the note that experts testified that LHO wrote, the Walker bullet which the experts testified is a Carcano 6.5 mm very close in composition to the bullet found in the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD, and the photos that the experts testified were taken by the same camera that took the backyard photos. These are all evidence that supports Marina’s testimony (which is also evidence).
Hi Charles, trying to be reasonable with unreasonable people is futile.
The conspiracy theorists or those who absurdly claim "show me where I said I was a conspiracy theorist" go all out to defend a person who defected to the enemy at the height of the Cold War and when rejected, hacked into his own wrist which caused massive blood loss which required stitches to repair, the same guy who in a letter to his brother Robert said he was willing to KILL any American, ANY American, the same guy who while in the marines shot himself in the elbow. He also hit his wife!
They want more evidence for this Walker assassination attempt but these same people claim Oswald is innocent of killing Tippit even though Oswald was positively identified either at the scene or moving away while fiddling with his gun?? There will never be enough evidence for the Hardcore conspiracy theorist.
Poor poor Oswald was surrounded by evidence linking him to three of the most infamous events in Dallas in 1963, like being in the building where Kennedy was shot, his fresh prints in the snipers nest, Oswald's rifle with Oswald's prints on the same floor, flight from the scene of the crime. Being positively identified at the Tippit crime scene, leaving exclusively matching shells to his revolver at the Tippit crime scene, being arrested with the same revolver and trying to kill more Police with the same revolver. Then just after Oswald purchased and received Oswald's rifle and was photographed with Oswald's rifle and just after Oswald wrote a note telling Marina what to do after Oswald committed a crime which could have Oswald himself killed and just after Oswald's camera took surveillance photos of Walkers house and possessing a map with Walkers house marked with a cross, then to top it off Oswald admitted to attempting to kill General Walker!!!
There couldn't possibly be any more incriminating evidence for each of these three vile disgusting acts but the afore mentioned conspiracy theorist's with a shrug of their shoulders say it couldn't possibly be Oswald because you know, reasons!
JohnM
There is no proof that Oswald wrote the letter? It was found among his possessions.
His own wife confirms that he left it for her. She also confirms that he confessed to trying to shoot Walker. I'm not exactly sure why that is not evidence.
Hi Charles, trying to be reasonable with unreasonable people is futile.
The conspiracy theorists or those who absurdly claim "show me where I said I was a conspiracy theorist" go all out to defend a person who defected to the enemy at the height of the Cold War and when rejected, hacked into his own wrist which caused massive blood loss and required stitches to repair, the same guy who in a letter to his brother Robert said he was willing to KILL any American, ANY American, the same guy who while in the marines shot himself in the elbow. He also hit his wife!
They want more evidence for this Walker assassination attempt but these same people claim Oswald is innocent of killing Tippit even though Oswald was positively identified either at the scene or moving away while fiddling with his gun?? There will never be enough evidence for the Hardcore conspiracy theorist.
Poor poor Oswald was surrounded by evidence linking him to three of the most infamous events in Dallas in 1963, like being in the building where Kennedy was shot, his fresh prints in the snipers nest, Oswald's rifle with Oswald's prints on the same floor, flight from the scene of the crime. Being positively identified at the Tippit crime scene, leaving exclusively matching shells to his revolver at the Tippit crime scene, being arrested with the same revolver and trying to kill more Police with the same revolver. Then just after Oswald purchased and received Oswald's rifle and was photographed with Oswald's rifle and just after Oswald wrote a note telling Marina what to do after Oswald committed a crime which could have Oswald himself killed and just after Oswald's camera took surveillance photos of Walkers house and possessing a map with Walkers house marked with a cross, then to top it off Oswald admitted to attempting to kill General Walker!!!
There couldn't possibly be any more incriminating evidence for each of these three vile disgusting acts but the afore mentioned conspiracy theorist's with a shrug of their shoulders say it couldn't possibly be Oswald because you know, reasons!
JohnM
In December 1963 after Oswald was dead for a few days, Ruth Paine, not the police, turned over a book with the note in it. The police didn't find note the first time they searched Paine's home when Lee was still alive.
So for all we know:
- the note could've been written by someone else and planted in the book after Oswald was killed.
or
- the note could've been written by Lee Oswald but the context had nothing to do with the Walker shooting.
Either way, it's circumstantial evidence at best, not direct evidence linking him to the crime, if Oswald did in fact write the letter.
Marina was not a reliable witness and you can't convict someone based on the testimony of a witness who didn't see the suspect commit the crime even if the witness claims the suspect confessed to the crime. More evidence than that is needed in normal circumstances.
Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA noted her inconsistencies and bad memory. For all we know she could've been mistaken or at worst, lied.
What's the explanation for her implausible story about stopping Lee from killing Richard Nixon?
- the note could've been written by someone else and planted in the book after Oswald was killed.
- the note could've been written by Lee Oswald but the context had nothing to do with the Walker shooting.
Marina was not a reliable witness and you can't convict someone based on the testimony of a witness who didn't see the suspect commit the crime even if the witness claims the suspect confessed to the crime. More evidence than that is needed in normal circumstances.
Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA noted her inconsistencies and bad memory. For all we know she could've been mistaken or at worst, lied.
Didn't you point out that there was no date or Walkers name on the Walker note, if a third party was going to plant incriminating evidence, wouldn't they at least add those two facts?
Marina gave specific details which she couldn't just make up, like the church having a meeting on the Wednesday as confirmed by the church itself! And as a matter of fact, how the heck did Marina even know a Church was nearby?
Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you about his being able to use a bus just as well as other people could use a car---something of that kind?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Simply as a passenger. He told me that even before that time he had gone also to shoot, but he had returned. I don't know why. Because on the day that he did fire, there was a church across the street and there were many people there, and it was easier to merge in the crowd and not be noticed.
JohnM
I said it could have been planted. The fact is, the police didn't find the letter when they searched the Paine home on 11/22/63. It wasn't found til a few days later with the help of Ruth Paine.
Even if Oswald did write the note, the lack of a date or mention of Walker makes it useless as evidence.
Also worth mentioning that neither Lee nor Marina's fingerprints were found on the note.
I'm not arguing that Oswald 'couldn't have done it'. I'm clarifying that the evidence linking Oswald to the Walker shooting is very weak.
There's a difference between saying 'he couldn't have done it' versus my saying 'there's not enough evidence to conclude that he did it'.
The story that you describe makes it even more incredible that no one saw Oswald anywhere near Walker's home on the night of the shooting.
The only witness described suspects who didn't fit Oswald's description:
The best witness to the Walker shooting incident was fourteen-year-old, Walter Kirk Coleman. He lived on Newton, which was just north of Walker’s house and overlooked the Mormon Church and parking lot.
On the evening of 10th April 1963, he was at home standing in the doorway which led from his bedroom to the outside of the house. He heard a loud noise which he first thought was a car backfire. He immediately ran outside and stepped on top of a bicycle propped up against the fence. This allowed him to look into the church parking lot. The journey from the doorway to the fence would only have taken him a few seconds.
Coleman was first interviewed by the Dallas Police on 11th April 1963 (click here for Police report). He said he saw a man getting into a 1949 or 1950 Ford who “took off in a hurry.” He saw a second man further down the parking lot at another car, bending over the front seat as if he was putting something in the back.
....
Two unidentified men were also seen acting suspiciously around Walker’s house on 8th April 1963. Robert Surrey was a close associate of General Walker and had set up a publishing company with him. It was actually Surrey who was responsible for the Wanted for Treason leaflets distributed around Dallas at the time of JFK’s visit.
Surrey told police and the FBI that around 9pm to 9:30pm on 8th April 1963, he had just arrived at Walker’s house and was planning to drive up the alley (where the shot was fired two nights later). He observed two men sitting in a 1963 Ford just off the alley. Surrey parked elsewhere and went back to see what these men were up to. He saw them get out of the car and walk up the alley. They went into the area at the rear of the property and looked in windows. Surrey took the opportunity to check their car. There was no license plate. He opened the glove compartment but saw nothing that would help identify the men. About 30 minutes later, the men returned to their car and Surrey followed them in his. He did not follow them long.
Surrey confirmed that he had never seen the men before or after that night. Like Coleman, he also provided a description to police and confirmed to them in June 1964 that he was of the opinion that neither man was Lee Harvey Oswald (click here for FBI report on Surrey statement).
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance
I said it could have been planted.
The fact is, the police didn't find the letter when they searched the Paine home on 11/22/63. It wasn't found til a few days later with the help of Ruth Paine.
Even if Oswald did write the note, the lack of a date or mention of Walker makes it useless as evidence.
Also worth mentioning that neither Lee nor Marina's fingerprints were found on the note.
I'm not arguing that Oswald 'couldn't have done it'. I'm clarifying that the evidence linking Oswald to the Walker shooting is very weak.
There's a difference between saying 'he couldn't have done it' versus my saying 'there's not enough evidence to conclude that he did it'
The story that you describe makes it even more incredible that no one saw Oswald anywhere near Walker's home on the night of the shooting.
The only witness described suspects who didn't fit Oswald's description:
The best witness to the Walker shooting incident was fourteen-year-old, Walter Kirk Coleman. He lived on Newton, which was just north of Walker’s house and overlooked the Mormon Church and parking lot.
On the evening of 10th April 1963, he was at home standing in the doorway which led from his bedroom to the outside of the house. He heard a loud noise which he first thought was a car backfire. He immediately ran outside and stepped on top of a bicycle propped up against the fence. This allowed him to look into the church parking lot. The journey from the doorway to the fence would only have taken him a few seconds.
Coleman was first interviewed by the Dallas Police on 11th April 1963 (click here for Police report). He said he saw a man getting into a 1949 or 1950 Ford who “took off in a hurry.” He saw a second man further down the parking lot at another car, bending over the front seat as if he was putting something in the back.
....
Two unidentified men were also seen acting suspiciously around Walker’s house on 8th April 1963. Robert Surrey was a close associate of General Walker and had set up a publishing company with him. It was actually Surrey who was responsible for the Wanted for Treason leaflets distributed around Dallas at the time of JFK’s visit.
Surrey told police and the FBI that around 9pm to 9:30pm on 8th April 1963, he had just arrived at Walker’s house and was planning to drive up the alley (where the shot was fired two nights later). He observed two men sitting in a 1963 Ford just off the alley. Surrey parked elsewhere and went back to see what these men were up to. He saw them get out of the car and walk up the alley. They went into the area at the rear of the property and looked in windows. Surrey took the opportunity to check their car. There was no license plate. He opened the glove compartment but saw nothing that would help identify the men. About 30 minutes later, the men returned to their car and Surrey followed them in his. He did not follow them long.
Surrey confirmed that he had never seen the men before or after that night. Like Coleman, he also provided a description to police and confirmed to them in June 1964 that he was of the opinion that neither man was Lee Harvey Oswald (click here for FBI report on Surrey statement).
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance
I said it could have been planted. The fact is, the police didn't find the letter when they searched the Paine home on 11/22/63. It wasn't found til a few days later with the help of Ruth Paine.
Even if Oswald did write the note, the lack of a date or mention of Walker makes it useless as evidence.
Also worth mentioning that neither Lee nor Marina's fingerprints were found on the note.
I'm not arguing that Oswald 'couldn't have done it'. I'm clarifying that the evidence linking Oswald to the Walker shooting is very weak.
There's a difference between saying 'he couldn't have done it' versus my saying 'there's not enough evidence to conclude that he did it'.
The story that you describe makes it even more incredible that no one saw Oswald anywhere near Walker's home on the night of the shooting.
The only witness described suspects who didn't fit Oswald's description:
The best witness to the Walker shooting incident was fourteen-year-old, Walter Kirk Coleman. He lived on Newton, which was just north of Walker’s house and overlooked the Mormon Church and parking lot.
On the evening of 10th April 1963, he was at home standing in the doorway which led from his bedroom to the outside of the house. He heard a loud noise which he first thought was a car backfire. He immediately ran outside and stepped on top of a bicycle propped up against the fence. This allowed him to look into the church parking lot. The journey from the doorway to the fence would only have taken him a few seconds.
Coleman was first interviewed by the Dallas Police on 11th April 1963 (click here for Police report). He said he saw a man getting into a 1949 or 1950 Ford who “took off in a hurry.” He saw a second man further down the parking lot at another car, bending over the front seat as if he was putting something in the back.
....
Two unidentified men were also seen acting suspiciously around Walker’s house on 8th April 1963. Robert Surrey was a close associate of General Walker and had set up a publishing company with him. It was actually Surrey who was responsible for the Wanted for Treason leaflets distributed around Dallas at the time of JFK’s visit.
Surrey told police and the FBI that around 9pm to 9:30pm on 8th April 1963, he had just arrived at Walker’s house and was planning to drive up the alley (where the shot was fired two nights later). He observed two men sitting in a 1963 Ford just off the alley. Surrey parked elsewhere and went back to see what these men were up to. He saw them get out of the car and walk up the alley. They went into the area at the rear of the property and looked in windows. Surrey took the opportunity to check their car. There was no license plate. He opened the glove compartment but saw nothing that would help identify the men. About 30 minutes later, the men returned to their car and Surrey followed them in his. He did not follow them long.
Surrey confirmed that he had never seen the men before or after that night. Like Coleman, he also provided a description to police and confirmed to them in June 1964 that he was of the opinion that neither man was Lee Harvey Oswald (click here for FBI report on Surrey statement).
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance
The Walker note was in Russian and Oswald's hand writing.
Wasn't the Walker note secreted in a Book? And I hope you aren't throwing kindly Quaker Ruth Paine under a bus?
So no comment on Marina's knowing about the close proximity of the Church and the mid week meeting? Duly noted.
Allegedly. Not all handwriting experts agreed with that conclusion. And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.
Although the FBI’s handwriting expert considered that the note was in Oswald’s handwriting (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.437), only one of the three experts who were consulted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations considered the note to be authentic (HSCA Report, appendix vol.8, pp.232–246).
I'm not accusing Paine of anything. I'm only saying we have no way to rule out the possibility that the note was planted there (by someone if not Ruth or Marina) after Oswald was killed.
The police and FBI didn't find the note the first time they searched the Paine home while Oswald was alive.
Even if the note is authentic, it's more difficult to prove its authenticity for those reasons.
I've stated several times in this thread and others that I don't believe Marina is a reliable witness. Given how many things she was wrong about or didn't remember, I don't think its intellectually honest to ignore her inconsistencies and bad memory.
Regardless of what Lee told Marina (or didn't tell her), no one can prove that he was anywhere near Walker's home on the night of the incident. There's no eyewitnesses or physical evidence connecting him to the crime scene.
And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.
Paper absorbs the oils that fingerprints consist of. They don’t last very long because of this. LHO reportedly hadn’t seen the note in many months because Marina hid it from him soon after the Walker incident. We therefore would not expect to see any of LHO’s fingerprints on that piece of paper. And the fact that none were found only supports Marina’s testimony.
I'm not accusing Paine of anything. I'm only saying we have no way to rule out the possibility that the note was planted there (by someone if not Ruth or Marina) after Oswald was killed.
It is not necessary to rule out all possibilities in order to convict someone of a crime. Just reasonable doubt. There is no probable evidence (aka: reasons) that suggests that anyone planted the note. So using your lame excuse for not believing the evidence is pure speculation and could not be considered by a jury.
The police and FBI didn't find the note the first time they searched the Paine home while Oswald was alive.
Marina hid it well. And it is reasonable to believe that, since the book was among Ruth Paine’s books in the kitchen, the investigators could have assumed it belonged to Ruth and left it alone.
Even if the note is authentic, it's more difficult to prove its authenticity for those reasons.
Those “reasons” are not legitimate reasons as I have just shown.
QuoteThe Walker note was in Russian and Oswald's hand writing.
Allegedly. Not all handwriting experts agreed with that conclusion. And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.
Although the FBI’s handwriting expert considered that the note was in Oswald’s handwriting (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.437), only one of the three experts who were consulted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations considered the note to be authentic (HSCA Report, appendix vol.8, pp.232–246).
And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.
It is not necessary to rule out all possibilities in order to convict someone of a crime. Just reasonable doubt. There is no probable evidence (aka: reasons) that suggests that anyone planted the note.
Even if the note is authentic, it's more difficult to prove its authenticity for those reasons.
Those “reasons” are not legitimate reasons as I have just shown.
Btw I'm getting a bit tired of doing your fact checking and correcting your mistakes like the Easter Saturday rifle incident. Do some more research before you blindly quote some conspiracy nonsense. Thanks in advance.
JohnM
Get back to me when you can show some direct evidence that proves that Oswald was at or near Walker's home at the time of the incident.
Oswald confessed to his own wife.
She was trying to protect herself from any claim that she should have known that Oswald was a dangerous person capable of a political assassination prior to Nov. 22. Her every incentive was not to acknowledge this fact but the evidence left her no choice. [/b]Walker home found
It can't be disproven that someone planted the note because of the circumstances in which it was found. How did the Dallas PD not find it the first time they searched Ruth Paine's home? That's an obvious question that any Defense Attorney would ask.
Weird how all the normal standards of evidence don't apply to LN'ers in the JFK assassination case. There's no judge who would allow that note to be used as evidence in the Walker case.
You're entitled to your own opinion but in a legal sense, what I'm saying is 100% true. It's not a solid piece of evidence. Even a Public Defender would be able to shoot it down in court.
It's perfectly fine for you to conclude that Oswald probably shot at Walker. I don't know if he did or didn't do it. There's not enough evidence to conclude that he did it.
It is utterly amazing to see, time after time again, that LNs just don't care about that authenticity of a piece of evidence.It is utterly amazing to me that CTs insist on assuming that the explanations provided by police officers are not to be trusted unless every conceivable means by which the evidence could be falsified is considered and disproved.
For them the mere assumption that it is authentic seems to be enough.
It is utterly amazing to me that CTs insist on assuming that the explanations provided by police officers are not to be trusted unless every conceivable means by which the evidence could be falsified is considered and disproved.
In the case of the letter, which was shown by handwriting experts to have been written by Oswald, any scenario in which it could have been planted leads to absurdities. How on Earth would anyone have been involved in planting something that could not have been made by anyone other than Oswald and have Marina identify it as such?
The fact that it was found accidentally strongly supports Marina's evidence that it is authentic. It was deliberately hidden, as Marina later admitted, in a place where Oswald would not likely find it. Marina told Oswald that she would go to the police with it if Oswald ever reneged on his promise.
It can't be disproven that someone planted the note because of the circumstances in which it was found.
What is so suspicious about Ruth Paine finding Marina’s book among her own books in her kitchen after Marina had left and apparently wasn’t planning to return? If I remember correctly, one of the investigators (possibly the interpreter) found the note in the book while looking through it. What is so suspicious about that? I think that your bias is showing through. You have no probable evidence that suggests the note was planted. Only your biased suspicions.
It is utterly amazing to me that CTs insist on assuming that the explanations provided by police officers are not to be trusted unless every conceivable means by which the evidence could be falsified is considered and disproved.
In the case of the letter, which was shown by handwriting experts to have been written by Oswald, any scenario in which it could have been planted leads to absurdities. How on Earth would anyone have been involved in planting something that could not have been made by anyone other than Oswald and have Marina identify it as such?
The fact that it was found accidentally strongly supports Marina's evidence that it is authentic. It was deliberately hidden, as Marina later admitted, in a place where Oswald would not likely find it. Marina told Oswald that she would go to the police with it if Oswald ever reneged on his promise.
It is utterly amazing to me that CTs insist on assuming that the explanations provided by police officers are not to be trusted
Even more amazing would be to assume that police officers always tell the truth and never purposely lie.
If and when a police officer finds a piece of evidence, adheres to the chain of custody requirements, places or has placed the evidence into the evidence room as quickly as possible and makes mention of the evidence he found in his report, there would indeed be no apparant reason to distrust that police officer's explanations. But that wouldn't prevent any defense lawyer to explore all options to discredit that officer.
However, when a police officer claims, long after the fact and the death of the suspect, that he found a piece of evidence, which he did not mention in any contemporary report and for which there is no chain of custody, then it is reasonable to question the trustworthiness of that officer.
In the case of the letter, which was shown by handwriting experts to have been written by Oswald,
No. That's a misrepresentation. An expert saying that there are similarities with Oswald's writing is not the same as saying that Oswald wrote it. With this in mind it is fair to say that the experts did not agree about the letter being written by Oswald
It is utterly amazing to see, time after time again, that LNs just don't care about the authenticity of a piece of evidence.
For them the mere assumption that it is authentic seems to be enough.
It's suspicious that it wasn't found by the police when the police searched her home. That doesn't mean the note was planted. It may not have been. It only means we can't rule out the possibility that it was planted given the circumstances of how and when the note was found.
I don't see a judge allowing the note to be admissible as evidence against Oswald in a hypothetical trial.
What is utterly amazing is to suggest any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fabrication by suburban housewives without a scintilla of support. Then turn around and deny that you are a CTer or have made any claim. Here Marina is a liar. The note is fabricated because it was found in a book. We are supposed to believe the note, which instructed Marina on what to do in the event of Oswald's death or arrest, might not be related to the Walker shooting. Those typing classes must have been dangerous. Who doesn't have photos of General Walker's house in their possession?
It is laughable. You should be embarrassed and beg the forgiveness of every person who reads your nonsense.
Why do you think that is suspicious? You keep repeating this with no real explanation.
I've explained why in this thread.
The timing, days after Oswald was murdered and after Gen. Walker publicly expressed his suspicion that Oswald took a shot at him, is suspicious in my opinion. And the fact that the note wasn't found by the police the first time they searched Paine's home is suspicious in my opinion.
But none of those things mean the note wasn't authentic. It only means you can drive a truck through the amount of reasonable doubt that Oswald wrote the note.
The story of how Oswald became a suspect in the Walker shooting posthumously is described below:
How did Oswald first become a suspect in the Walker shooting incident?
"It was a right-wing German newspaper called the Deutsche National-Zeitung und Soldaten-Zeitung that first highlighted Oswald’s possible involvement in the Walker shooting incident when they published an article on 29th November 1963. This was based on interviews General Walker had given to the newspaper in the days following JFK’s assassination. It was likely Walker who planted the seed with them about Oswald being the person who took the shot at him.
We then have Ruth Paine visiting the Irving Police Department on 2nd December 1963 to hand over some of Marina Oswald’s belongings. Included was a Russian book called “Book of Useful Advice.” When the book was inspected by the Secret Service later that day, they found a two-page note inside written in Russian. This note was allegedly written by Oswald with instructions for his wife on what to do if he was killed or taken prisoner. Marina told law enforcement officials the day after the note was found that it was written by her husband, and she had first seen it on the night of the Walker shooting. She said that Lee had arrived home late that night and admitted to taking the shot and burying the rifle, which he would retrieve later."
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance
Could it have been a mere coincidence that the note surfaced days after speculation of Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting was mentioned in the Press? Yes. But people can be forgiven for suspecting that might've been planted due to the timing and circumstances of how it came to be discovered and I don't think that piece of evidence would be admissible in court due to the circumstances.
Lastly, I've explained several times that I think it's possible that Oswald did it. But the evidence isn't sufficient to draw solid conclusions because none of the evidence places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident.
It only means you can drive a truck through the amount of reasonable doubt that Oswald wrote the note.
There is nothing about your biased suspicious opinions that could be classified as reasonable doubt in a court of law. You need actual relevant and probative evidence that someone planted the note in order to call it reasonable. A vague suggestion about the timing and/or circumstances without any evidence will not suffice. Sadly, this MO is the mantra of the CT crowd, and I think that, after almost 60-years of these suspicions with not a shred of evidence, it is time for people to start seeing these things for what they are - nonsense.
But people can be forgiven for suspecting that might've been planted due to the timing and circumstances of how it came to be discovered and I don't think that piece of evidence would be admissible in court due to the circumstances.
You can suspect whatever you want for eternity, I don't care, so no forgiveness is needed for that. And as long as you state it is your opinion (instead of a claim of fact) you can believe that your "suspicious circumstances" would prevent the note from being admissible in court. However, since none of your suspicions could ever be considered reasonable doubt based on actual evidence, I think that you are dead wrong.
But the evidence isn't sufficient to draw solid conclusions because none of the evidence places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident.
Marina's testimony regarding that LHO confessed to her (on the night of the Walker incident) that he took a shot at Walker most definitely places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident. It is evidence that a jury would have to consider. You cannot just dismiss it entirely and claim that there is no evidence that places him at the crime scene. You can choose to have doubts, but without reasonable doubt based on actual probative evidence, your doubts are just pure conjecture and could not be considered by a jury.
Marina's testimony regarding that LHO confessed to her (on the night of the Walker incident) that he took a shot at Walker most definitely places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident. It is evidence that a jury would have to consider.
Your premise is wrong. You can not argue that Marina confirmed the authenticity of the document and it's context at trial because she wouldn't be there to testify in the first place. And without her, you've got nothing.
Neither Jon’s claim or my response said anything about a trial. We will never have a trial and we do have Marina’s testimony.
Neither Jon’s claim or my response said anything about a trial. We will never have a trial and we do have Marina’s testimony.
Marina's testimony regarding that LHO confessed to her (on the night of the Walker incident) that he took a shot at Walker most definitely places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident. It is evidence that a jury would have to consider. You cannot just dismiss it entirely and claim that there is no evidence that places him at the crime scene. You can choose to have doubts, but without reasonable doubt based on actual probative evidence, your doubts are just pure conjecture and could not be considered by a jury.
Again, Marina’s testimony is supported by the physical evidence.
How plausible is Marina’s testimony that Lee left the rifle near Walker’s home and went back to retrieve it later? I’ve never found that to be plausible. She also made an implausible claim about locking Lee in the bathroom for hours so he wouldn’t shoot Richard Nixon. As I said earlier, only Marina knows why she said the inconsistent things she said and how truthful she was at the time. I can’t cherry-pick parts of her testimony and discard others when convenient. I don’t think she’s a credible witness.
As for the Walker shooting crime scene, No spent shell casings or a rifle were found near Walker’s home. No one saw Oswald or anyone on foot with a rifle. This is the same guy who allegedly left spent shell casings and other evidence at both the Book Depository and the Tippit murder scene? Hence why there’s speculation that if Oswald did take a shot at Walker, he may have had an accomplice who drove him there. Maybe he was one of the two men a witness saw drive away after the shooting?
But all we can do is speculate about how he could’ve done it without leaving any traces of evidence behind because there’s no evidence that directly links Oswald to the actual crime…
Did I say anything about any testimony? There is an FBI report that you directed me to, CE 2010 if I remember correctly. This is what the WC asked for. It was their investigation.
Yet, you still want to place your arguments in a trial setting.
It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too.
This is another example of the naysayers apparently accepting information without authentication. Yet they submit (based on nothing but lame excuses and speculation) that the evidence against LHO wasn’t properly authenticated. ::)
There are no excuses or speculation involved. You can either authenticate the evidence or you cannot.
Except it isn’t. The “physical evidence” tells you nothing about anybody shooting Walker. The only basis for that is Marina’s claim about what Lee told her.
Except it isn’t. The “physical evidence” tells you nothing about anybody shooting Walker. The only basis for that is Marina’s claim about what Lee told her.
Are you aware that this is third-hand hearsay in an anonymously written letter?
Are you aware that Don McElroy said it was he and not Norvell who found and picked up the Walker bullet?
Again, Marina’s testimony definitely links LHO to the crime. The note, the photos, and the bullet recovered from Walker’s house are all highly probative evidence that links LHO to the crime. And the evidence all supports one another.
There is no proof that Oswald wrote the letter? It was found among his possessions.
I'm content with viewing LHO as a potential suspect in the Walker shooting based on her testimony.
But I also stand by my view that there's no evidence that places Oswald at the scene of the crime on April 10th 1963 because there's no evidence.
Wrong again, “Richard”. It was (supposedly) found in a Russian “book of helpful instructions” on Ruth Paine’s bookshelf.
But I also stand by my view that there's no evidence that places Oswald at the scene of the crime on April 10th 1963 because there's no evidence.
You have been shown the evidence over and over and over again. It does place LHO at the crime scene. You can believe otherwise if you want. But claiming that there is no evidence is flat out false.
That’s your very biased opinion. Sorry but you would be very unlikely to serve on the jury based on your bias.
The conspiracy theorists or those who absurdly claim "show me where I said I was a conspiracy theorist" go all out to defend a person who defected to the enemy at the height of the Cold War and when rejected, hacked into his own wrist which caused massive blood loss and required stitches to repair, the same guy who in a letter to his brother Robert said he was willing to KILL any American, ANY American, the same guy who while in the marines shot himself in the elbow. He also hit his wife!
It is an official FBI report that the WC asked for, received, and accepted into the record.
Base on your response, I don't think you understand the differences between physical and metaphysical evidence ::)
It requires no belief or speculation on my part to acknowledge that direct evidence connecting LHO to the crime scene doesn't exist or has never been found.
Is that supposed to make it something other than third-hand hearsay in an anonymously written letter? We already have Bardwell Odum on record as saying that another part of this anonymously written letter was incorrect when it claimed he showed another piece of evidence to certain people.
If Odum actually did go on record regarding an incorrect item, but Odum didn’t go on record with a need to make any corrections to what the official FBI report said about the Walker bullet identification, then I think it stands to reason that Odum must have agreed with the report regarding the Walker bullet. YMMV
What makes you think that Odum even knew about what some unknown FBI employee wrote in a report?
When he was contacted he was completely surprised to learn that his name had been used, in the "authentication" of CE399 so, no, it doesn't stand to reason that Odum must have agreed with anything in CE2011 and that includes anything to do with the Walker shooting.
Btw, where would somebody go to make a statement on the record about what is written in a FBI report that's locked away for many years in the National Archives?
Is that supposed to make it something other than third-hand hearsay in an anonymously written letter? We already have Bardwell Odum on record as saying that another part of this anonymously written letter was incorrect when it claimed he showed another piece of evidence to certain people.
John’s claim states that Odum said part of the report was incorrect. It is reasonable to believe that if this is true that Odum must have actually read the report. If you can show that Odum didn’t read the report then you might have a point.
This only shows that you are not familiar with the actual facts.
CE2011 is the FBI's response to a request of the WC for authentication of a number of pieces of evidence that, at that point, lacked such authentication.
In the report it said that Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that neither could confirm that it was the bullet they handled at Parkland on 11/22/63. However, it added that both men thought the bullet looked similar.
We have since learned that Tomlinson was only shown a bullet once, by SAC Shanklin, in December 1963 and that Wright is on record saying that the bullet we now know as CE399 does not resemble the bullet he received from Tomlinson on 11/22/63. We also know that Odum was known for writing reports about everything he did and that for this alleged encounter no report exists or has been found.
The FBI report, written in Washington when Odum was stationed in Dallas, went under lock and key along with all the other WC documents. When it was finally released into the public domain, many years later, researchers noted the discrepancy between what was written in CE2011 and an Airtel of SAC Shanklin about the same matter.
So, they contacted Odum who reacted with surprise that his name had been used because he had never had or shown CE399 to anybody. If Odum had read the report, when it was presented to the WC, he would not have reacted surprised when he learned his name had been used.
So, John was correct in pointing out that Odum said that a part of the report was not correct.
What makes you think that CE 2011 was written in Washington? At the top of the report, just under the official FBI letterhead, is typed: Dallas, Texas, July 7, 1964.
Does that mean the entire report was written in Dallas?
So, the Dallas office sent people to Washington and New Orleans to verify the authenticity of pieces of evidence. Does that make sense to you?
Anyway, it's hardly relevant where it was written. The fact remains that Odum wasn't aware his name had been used in the report, which automatically means that he didn't read it before it was submitted to the WC.
You haven’t shown anything other than your biased opinion that Odum never read the report.
Here is what the report says about the Walker bullet identification:
Bullet from the Walker residence, C148
On June 12, 1964, Exhibit C148, a mutilated rifle slug, was shown to Billy Gene Norvall, former Dallas police officer, 1603 Darr Street, Apartment 147, Irving, Texas, by Special Agent Bardwell D . Odum, Federal Bureau of Investigation. He identified this exhibit as the same one which he had found at the residence of Manor General Sdwin A . Walker, Dallas Texas, on April 10, 1963, and identified his marking on the slug.
And you have shown nothing whatsoever that even hints that Odum disputes what the report says about the Walker bullet.
You haven’t shown anything other than your biased opinion that Odum never read the report.
I seriously doubt there is anything I could say that would have any impact on your own biased opinion. For what it is worth, your claim that Odum did read the report is pure speculation.
And you have shown nothing whatsoever that even hints that Odum disputes what the report says about the Walker bullet.
I am not aware that Odum was ever asked about what the report says about the Walker bullet.
But you seem to be missing the point John made. Odum said that the information in the report about him showing CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright was not correct because it never happened. If that part of the report is untrue, you can not rely on other parts of the same report to be true, which of course includes the part of the Walker bullet.
She brought the book to the Secret Service with Marina's other belongings and they found the note in the book.
Not saying it was planted but there were plenty of opportunities to do so under those circumstances.
Dismissing the entire report as unreliable based on something some yet to be identified “researcher” said that Odum supposedly said years after the fact about a part of the report that is not related to the Walker bullet is typical of the common and utterly ridiculous tactics used by people who write conspiracy books to make money. If you want to try to create some doubt about the part of the report in which Odum supposedly based on hearsay from some yet to be identified reasercher, then have fun with it. But it has nothing to do with the Walker bullet.
Dismissing the entire report as unreliable based on something some yet to be identified “researcher” said that Odum supposedly said years after the fact
What makes you think the researcher hasn't been identified yet?
Just by saying that you demonstrate clearly that you are not aware of the facts and are just saying things to be argumentative. I am not at my regular pc, where I store all the JFK files, and I can't remember the name of the researcher right now, but I can give you that later today.
What makes you think that Odum even knew about what some unknown FBI employee wrote in a report?
When he was contacted he was completely surprised to learn that his name had been used, in the "authentication" of CE399 so, no, it doesn't stand to reason that Odum must have agreed with anything in CE2011 and that includes anything to do with the Walker shooting.
Btw, where would somebody go to make a statement on the record about what is written in a FBI report that's locked away for many years in the National Archives?
The researcher hasn’t been identified in this thread.
Be sure to include the circumstances and any evidence that Odum “went on the record” with this.
Btw, where would somebody go to make a statement on the record about what is written in a FBI report that's locked away for many years in the National Archives?
CE 2011 was published for the public shortly after the release of the Warren Report in 1964 (volume XXIV, page 411). It was not locked away in the national archives for “many years”.
The researcher hasn’t been identified in this thread.
So what? If you knew who he was you wouldn't have asked....
Anyway, the researcher was Gary Aquilar and he talked to Odum on September 12, 2002
Perhaps this helps you understand (although I doubt it);
https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide11.GIF
https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Aguilar-Tilley_3-7-2005.pdf
I don’t have any problem understanding. I just asked for some details that I consider important.
However, it does appear that in 2002, Odum was having trouble understand anything that Aguilar said. Are there more pages to the telephone conversation transcript that you can show us?
If Odum actually did go on record regarding an incorrect item, but Odum didn’t go on record with a need to make any corrections to what the official FBI report said about the Walker bullet identification, then I think it stands to reason that Odum must have agreed with the report regarding the Walker bullet. YMMV
John’s claim states that Odum said part of the report was incorrect. It is reasonable to believe that if this is true that Odum must have actually read the report. If you can show that Odum didn’t read the report then you might have a point.
How does it appear that Odum was having trouble understand what Aguilar said?
He clearly states that he never went to Parkland and never showed any bullet to anybody. There is no misunderstanding whatsoever, but I can understand why you would want to create one.
All WC files were declared secret and locked away for 75 years at the National Archives. That includes the originals of all pieces of evidence.
The WC volumes only show reproductions.
Let's back this up a bit;
I asked you;
What makes you think that Odum even knew about what some unknown FBI employee wrote in a report?
In two posts you stated that in your opinion it is reasonable that Odum agreed with the report and must have read the report.
Now, leaving your biased opinion aside for a moment, what do you have to show that Odum did in fact read the report before it was submitted to the WC?
I would like to see the entire conversation before commenting further. The most glaring item so far appears to be Aguilar’s admission that he failed to send Odum the FBI report in question (CE2011). Odum was a senior agent in 1963 per Hosty in his book “Assignment Oswald”. 2002 is almost 40-years after the time frame in question. How was Odum to know what the heck Aguilar was talking about? I suspect Odum probably thought Aguilar was asking about events on 11/22/63 (not June of 1964). After all, Odum asked if Aguilar was one of the doctors.
CE2011 is the FBI’s official response to a letter from a presidential commission to the head of the FBI (JEH). Therefore it is reasonable to believe that CE2011 would be accurate. After all, most people working for the FBI wanted to keep their jobs, so the last thing they would want is the wrath of JEH, etc for getting something wrong. On the other hand, it appears that you and John put your faith in a portion of a unauthenticated, unplanned, and unprepared for (by Odum at least) telephone conversation between an apparently inept “researcher” and an old man about details from almost 40-years earlier. ::)
WTF is the problem. Are you suggesting they were faked or planted. If so, where is the evidence for this?
No, I am merely stating as fact that the testimony of Victoria Adams, as it appears in the 26 volumes is not the same as the original at the National Archives. I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusion.
The most glaring item so far appears to be Aguilar’s admission that he failed to send Odum the FBI report in question (CE2011).
Which has nothing to do with your biased claim that Odum somehow having trouble understand anything that Aguilar said
2002 is almost 40-years after the time frame in question. How was Odum to know what the heck Aguilar was talking about?
40 years is indeed a long time, but if you held one of the bullets that allegedly killed the President, would you forget that, ever?
How was Odum to know what the heck Aguilar was talking about?
But he did know. The transcript shows that Odum even asked Aguilar if he was talking about the bullet found at Parkland.
I suspect Odum probably thought Aguilar was asking about events on 11/22/63 (not June of 1964).
There is no reason to conclude that.
After all, Odum asked if Aguilar was one of the doctors.
No he didn't. He asked Aguilar if he was a doctor. Aguilar has M.D. behind his name and wrote Odum a letter before calling him. Odum confirmed that he received the letter.
CE2011 is the FBI’s official response to a letter from a presidential commission to the head of the FBI. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that CE2011 would be accurate.
That's exactly the problem with this kind of stuff. "It's from the FBI, so it must be true". Never mind that the CE2011 report states that Tomlinson allegedly told Odum that the bullet shown "appears to be the same one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital" and that Wright said it "looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital" when there is absolutely no record whatsoever that either man made such a comment.
Even worse, Wright is on record that the bullet now known as CE399 does not resemble the pointed bullet he had seen and handled and Tomlinson is on record that he was only shown a bullet once, in December 1963, by SAC Shanklin (and thus not Odum in june 1964).
And that's not all. In his Airtel to Director FBI, of 6/20/64, Dallas SAC Shanklin wrote: "neither Darrell C. Tomlinson, who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, nor O.P. Wright, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from Tomlinson and gave to Special Agent Richard E, Johnson, Secret Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet.
Also, no FD 302 written by Odum on this subject was ever found.
So, if CE2011 isn't a fabrication, where exactly did they get that Tomlinson said it "appears to be the same one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital" and that Wright said it "looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital"?
LOL, has it been 75-years already? Didn’t you say that the originals are locked away in the archives for 75-years?
The most glaring item so far appears to be Aguilar’s admission that he failed to send Odum the FBI report in question (CE2011).
Which has nothing to do with your biased claim about Odum somehow having trouble understand anything that Aguilar said.
EDIT: Aguilar did in fact send CE2011 and Shanklin's Airtel to Odum
2002 is almost 40-years after the time frame in question. How was Odum to know what the heck Aguilar was talking about?
40 years is indeed a long time, but if you held one of the bullets that allegedly killed the President, would you forget that, ever?
How was Odum to know what the heck Aguilar was talking about?
But he did know. The transcript shows that Odum even asked Aguilar if he was talking about the bullet found at Parkland.
I suspect Odum probably thought Aguilar was asking about events on 11/22/63 (not June of 1964).
There is no reason to conclude that.
After all, Odum asked if Aguilar was one of the doctors.
No he didn't. He asked Aguilar if he was a doctor. Aguilar has M.D. behind his name and wrote Odum a letter before calling him. Odum confirmed that he received the letter.
CE2011 is the FBI’s official response to a letter from a presidential commission to the head of the FBI. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that CE2011 would be accurate.
K Never mind that the CE2011 report states that Tomlinson allegedly told Odum that the bullet shown "appears to be the same one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital" and that Wright said it "looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital" when there is absolutely no record whatsoever that either man made such a comment.
Even worse, Wright is on record that the bullet now known as CE399 does not resemble the pointed bullet he had seen and handled and Tomlinson is on record that he was only shown a bullet once, in December 1963, by SAC Shanklin (and thus not Odum in june 1964).
And that's not all. In his Airtel to Director FBI, of 6/20/64, Dallas SAC Shanklin wrote: "neither Darrell C. Tomlinson, who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, nor O.P. Wright, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from Tomlinson and gave to Special Agent Richard E, Johnson, Secret Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet.
Also, no FD 302 written by Odum on this subject was ever found.
So, if CE2011 isn't a fabrication, where exactly did they get that Tomlinson said it "appears to be the same one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital" and that Wright said it "looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital"?
Which has nothing to do with your biased claim that Odum somehow having trouble understand anything that Aguilar said
It has a lot to do with it. Where in that conversation does either one of them state that they are talking about June 1964 instead of 11/22/63?
Now I know for sure you are not being serious.
Just about everybody interested in this case knows that the original intention was to keep the files locked away for 75 years. That some were released earlier had everything to do with Stone's JFK movie.
You either know this or are completely ignorant....
That's exactly the problem with this kind of stuff. "It's from the FBI, so it must be true".
No, the problem is that anything that tends to incriminate LHO is automatically declared faked or planted without any evidence whatsoever. The conversation transcript of the conversation between Aguilar and Odom is one of the most pathetic lame excuses that I have seen. Put your faith in it if you wish. But don’t expect anyone with any intelligence to agree that it confirms anything at all regarding the Walker bullet.
This is the way it always goes. You cannot back up any of your claims, so you start attacking others. Pitiful…
The conversation transcript of the conversation between Aguilar and Odom is one of the most pathetic lame excuses that I have seen. Put your faith in it if you wish. But don’t expect anyone with any intelligence to agree that it confirms anything at all regarding the Walker bullet.
Just because you made up that it could have been 11/22/63, doesn't mean that the people in the conversation did not know they were talking about June 1964.
CE2011, which Aguilar did send to Odum, actually claims that Odum showed the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright in June 1964.
Btw, is this your silly attempt to avoid dealing with everything else I wrote in my post?
CE2011, which Aguilar did send to Odum
No Agular states that he didn’t send it.
Just because you made up that it could have been 11/22/63, doesn't mean that the people in the conversation did not know they were talking about June 1964.
CE2011, which Aguilar did send to Odum, actually claims that Odum showed the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright in June 1964.
Btw, is this your silly attempt to avoid dealing with everything else I wrote in my post?
Btw, is this your silly attempt to avoid dealing with everything else I wrote in my post?
I don’t remember seeing anything else that pertains to the Walker case.
And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.
Paper absorbs the oils that fingerprints consist of. They don’t last very long because of this. LHO reportedly hadn’t seen the note in many months because Marina hid it from him soon after the Walker incident. We therefore would not expect to see any of LHO’s fingerprints on that piece of paper. And the fact that none were found only supports Marina’s testimony.
This is what happens when you don't do your research and just claim things;
Stymied, author Aguilar turned to his co-author. “What does Odum have to say about it?” Thompson asked.
“Odum? How the hell do I know? Is he still alive?”
“I’ll find out,” he promised.
Less than an hour later, Thompson had located Mr. Bardwell Odum’s home address and phone number. Aguilar phoned him on September 12, 2002. He was still alive and well and living in a suburb of Dallas. The 82-year old was alert and quick-witted on the phone and he regaled Aguilar with fond memories of his service in the Bureau. Finally, the Kennedy case came up and Odum agreed to help interpret some of the conflicts in the records. Two weeks after mailing Odum the relevant files – CE # 2011, the three-page FBI memo dated July 7, 1964, and the “FBI AIRTEL” memo dated June 12, 1964, Aguilar called him back.
Mr. Odum told Aguilar, “I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.” [Fig. 11] Unwilling to leave it at that, both authors paid Mr. Odum a visit in his Dallas home on November 21, 2002. The same alert, friendly man on the phone greeted us warmly and led us to a comfortable family room. To ensure no misunderstanding, we laid out before Mr. Odum all the relevant documents and read aloud from them.
Again, Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the Kennedy assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI’s investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence. But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he said he would certainly have turned in a “302” report covering something that important. Odum’s sensible comment had the ring of truth. For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once secret files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.
https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
BS... it pertains to the reliability of CE2011, on which you rely for your position in the Walker case. That's why John mention Odum and CE399. If the FBI can misrepresent an encounter that never happened, in an "official" report written by an unknown author, they can easily do the same in the Walker matter. That's the whole point.
Are you aware of the memo written by Latoya to Mr. Trotter and other officials at the FBI, dated 12/5/63, in which he writes that seven latent fingerprints found on the letter (the Walker note) and none was identical with the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald or Marina Nikolaevna Oswald?
Do you think that everyone that handled the note after it was discovered used gloves or other devices so that they didn’t leave any fingerprints? Apparently neither Marina or LHO had handled the note in many months. Which goes to support the fact that fingerprints do not last very long on paper.
This is what happens when you don't do your research and just claim things;
I asked for details to support claims made by you and John. You provide bits and pieces instead of laying it all out.
Suspicions is all you have. A faulty memory and some “missing” documents does not in any way prove any misrepresentation by the FBI.
Do you think that everyone that handled the note after it was discovered used gloves or other devices so that they didn’t leave any fingerprints? Apparently neither Marina or LHO had handled the note in many months. Which goes to support the fact that fingerprints do not last very long on paper.
And, of course, if Oswald's prints were found on the note (as they were on the rifle etc), Martin would be claiming it was the product of fabrication. It's the endless loop of rabbit hole contrarian lunacy. Here we are to believe that the conspirators fabricated this note to incriminate Oswald in the Walker shooting (completely unnecessary after he was dead and the authorities were satisfied of his guily for the JFK assassination) but they didn't make the note more explicit or claim that they found his prints on the note.
And, of course, if Oswald's prints were found on the note (as they were on the rifle etc), Martin would be claiming it was the product of fabrication.
I have never ever claimed that a print was the product of fabrication. I have also never misrepresented the facts like you do. The FBI examined the rifle the night after the murder and found no prints. Even worse, not even a trace of a print having been lifted. So don't give me the BS that there were prints on the rifle.
Do you think that everyone that handled the note after it was discovered used gloves or other devices
Why are you asking me what I think?
Apparently neither Marina or LHO had handled the note in many months.
And this conclusion is based on what, exactly? Let me guess....biased imagination, right?
Nope, the details were laid out to you and you just ignored them.
And this the reason why you ignored them; it's easier to just dismiss something when you don't have to deal with the facts
Too bad you even have to misrepresent the details to get to this point.
There is no evidence to support your conclusion that Odum (I presume you are talking about him) had a faulty memory, other than - of course - your biased opinion
And there are no "missing documents". What there is, is an Airtel from SAC Shanklin that does not match what the FBI told the WC in CE2011.
But you don't want to know that, right?
You don't want to know that Tomlinson is on record twice saying that the only person who ever showed him a bullet was SAC Shanklin in December 1963, nor do you want to know that Wright is on record saying that the bullet now known as CE399 isn't the pointed bullet he received from Tomlinson. You couldn't care less that Odum stated he never showed any bullet to anybody, nor that there is no FD 302 for that alleged encounter and you certainly don't care that SAC Shanklin never mentioned Odum in his Airtel and gave a different version from what is written in CE2011.
This is the kind of ignorance that the WC and Hoover wanted people to have to sell their fairytale to.
Damn, I guess we should just let Martin tell us what we should think, call the case solved and go home and close up the forum now…. ::)
Anything but to deal with the actual details.... So sad
None of this has anything to do with the Walker case. You have tried in vain to imply that the FBI report (CE2011) was deliberately construed to misrepresent the facts surrounding a completely different bullet. Conjecture and innuendo is all you have provided for your implication that the entire CE3011 report, including the Walker bullet identification is tainted. You only have unanswerable questions which you use as innuendo and when no one responds you claim it is because we are ignoring these things. Yet you couldn’t possibly know what we are thinking unless we tell you.
This is the way it always goes. You cannot back up any of your claims, so you start attacking others. Pitiful…
The conspiracy theorists or those who absurdly claim "show me where I said I was a conspiracy theorist" go all out to defend a person who defected to the enemy at the height of the Cold War and when rejected, hacked into his own wrist which caused massive blood loss and required stitches to repair, the same guy who in a letter to his brother Robert said he was willing to KILL any American, ANY American, the same guy who while in the marines shot himself in the elbow. He also hit his wife!
Is this rant supposed to be evidence that he killed the president or took a shot at Walker?
Marina’s testimony is direct evidence (per the definition in the instructions to the jury that have already been posted in this thread) that LHO confessed to her to taking a shot at Walker on the night of the incident. Marina is an eyewitness to LHO’s confession.
The bullet recovered from Walker’s house is direct probative evidence connecting LHO to the crime scene.
The experts say that it is completely consistent with a Carcano bullet fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor. And that there are five identifying marks on that bullet that match that specific rifle. Eight identifying marks are what the FBI standards are, but the New York standards only require five identifying marks to exclude all other firearms in the world. The FBI experts therefore state that it very likely came from that rifle. Combine the probabilities of all the evidence (as a jury is required to do). LHO’s confession, the note, Marina’s testimony, the bullet, the photos of Walker’s house, etc. There is no reasonable doubt (aka: evidence that LHO was not at the scene). And a jury is required to make their conclusions based on the evidence, they are not allowed to consider conjecture. The verdict should be guilty without question.
Again, why would anyone need to link Oswald to the Walker attempt AFTER he was already dead, and the investigating authorities were satisfied of his guilt? What would be the purpose of all that? The conspirators aren't satisfied with just framing him for the JFK assassination and then murdering him to keep him silent? They now have to frame him for yet another crime by fabricating a note, hiding it in a book in Paine's home, and then somehow manipulating the discovery of the note?
The researcher hasn’t been identified in this thread.
Be sure to include the circumstances and any evidence that Odum “went on the record” with this.
CE2011 is the FBI’s official response to a letter from a presidential commission to the head of the FBI (JEH). Therefore it is reasonable to believe that CE2011 would be accurate.
Suspicions is all you have. A faulty memory and some “missing” documents does not in any way prove any misrepresentation by the FBI.
There could be any number of reasons that no trace was found.
But the same FBI that you rely on, took an imprint from Oswald's rifle from the exact same place that Day on the day took the palmprint impression from Oswald's rifle
Remember, Hoover had a pre-existing agenda to “convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin”.
None of this has anything to do with the Walker case.
I find Oswald's history interesting and it's worth people knowing what sort of person Oswald was.
The same Hoover's FBI who couldn't find any matching prints on C2766?
The same Hoover's FBI who couldn't find an exclusive match of the trigger guard prints?
The same Hoover's FBI who couldn't exclusively match rifle fibers to Oswald's shirt fibers?
The same Hoover's FBI who couldn't say the backyard photo exclusively showed C2766?
The same Hoover's FBI who couldn't exclusively match the revolver bullets to Oswald's revolver?
The same Hoover's FBI who couldn't find any exclusive rifle marks in the rifle bag?
The same Hoover's FBI who couldn't find an exclusive match to the fibers found in the rifle bag to Oswald's blanket?
The same Hoover's FBI who couldn't exclusively match the fibers found in Oswald's jacket to Oswald's shirt?
The same Hoover's FBI who only found two matching block letters on a rifle coupon?
Etcetera etcetera
That Hoover's FBI is the one you're talking about, right? LMFAO!
Wow, you’re making an excellent case for reasonable doubt. Well done!
I didn’t say “Hoover’s FBI”, I said “Hoover”. But nice try.
Wow, you’re making an excellent case for reasonable doubt. Well done!
And this is the crux of where we diverge on what constitutes reliable evidence. “FBI letter says so” isn’t inherently any more reliable than “Gary Aguilar says so”.
Remember, Hoover had a pre-existing agenda to “convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin”.
I didn’t say “Hoover’s FBI”, I said “Hoover”. But nice try.
You have tried in vain to imply that the FBI report (CE2011) was deliberately construed to misrepresent the facts surrounding a completely different bullet.
Keep running.....
Conjecture and innuendo is all you have provided for your implication that the entire CE3011 report
What CE3011 report? You can't even get that right.
You only have unanswerable questions which you use as innuendo and when no one responds you claim it is because we are ignoring these things. Yet you couldn’t possibly know what we are thinking unless we tell you.
But that's the point. If you have anything of value to say, you would have said it by now..... Instead you are running away from dealing with the facts.... Says everything, really...
It’s direct evidence as to what Lee told her. It’s not direct evidence that Lee actually did it. And Marina is known to be unreliable.
I don’t know where you got the silly idea that reasonable doubt requires contradictory evidence.
The Walker bullet was described in contemporary reports as a steel-jacketed .30 caliber bullet. That’s reasonable doubt. Norvell and McElroy gave different accounts about who found the bullet. That’s reasonable doubt. The only evidence that the bullet was identified is an anonymously written thirdhand account. That’s reasonable doubt. The so-called Walker note doesn’t mention Walker or shooting and cannot be dated. That’s reasonable doubt. The bullet in evidence cannot be matched to a specific rifle to the exclusion of all others. That’s reasonable doubt. Connecting a bullet to a rifle doesn’t tell you who fired it anyway. That’s reasonable doubt. Photos of a house have nothing to do with firing a bullet at somebody. That’s reasonable doubt. You can’t determine who took the photos anyway. That’s reasonable doubt. One of the photos was tampered with anyway, by cutting out a license plate. Oswald would have no reason to do that. That’s reasonable doubt.
And this is the crux of where we diverge on what constitutes reliable evidence. “FBI letter says so” isn’t inherently any more reliable than “Gary Aguilar says so”.
Remember, Hoover had a pre-existing agenda to “convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin”.
Smearing Aguilar as “inept” and Odum as “old” doesn’t make an anonymously written thirdhand account any more reliable.
What makes you think his memory was “faulty”? Just because you want to believe something else?
This is really disingenuous. If CE2011 can be shown to be unreliable, then it’s all unreliable. Why are there no actual reports written by the agents who are being spoken for there?
And, of course, if Oswald's prints were found on the note (as they were on the rifle etc), Martin would be claiming it was the product of fabrication.
I have never ever claimed that a print was the product of fabrication. I have also never misrepresented the facts like you do. The FBI examined the rifle the night after the murder and found no prints. Even worse, not even a trace of a print having been lifted. So don't give me the BS that there were prints on the rifle.
See John, that's the difference between a LNer and a CT or the members who repeatedly say "show me where I said I was a CT", we accept the vast majority of Expert evidence as stated
and make reasonable inferences from said evidence
whereas a CT will not accept anything that doesn't fit their World view and claim that "they" lied or faked it or planted it, etc ad nauseum!
None of your items could be considered reasonable doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.
Aguilar was inept. There is no reason for me to have to smear him. He tells us this himself in his telephone conversation with Odum:
You know, when I look at this material that I sent you, I notice that this is not the one document that says you had …. Thank you, by the way, for ….. I just asked the question because this is not the one that actually lists you as the guy that carried it around. No, but there is one that does and like an idiot I guess I didn’t include that.
And Odum was old, no smearing intended or necessary.
This is really ridiculous. No one has shown CE2011 to be unreliable.
And even if someone were able to show that there is an error in one part of it, that does not automatically mean that the whole document is unreliable. Same goes with Marina’s testimony. You regularly dismiss her entire testimony without good reason.
LOL. You proved my point. The DPD indicated that they found Oswald's print on the rifle. You still don't accept it.
Your quote doesn’t apply in the least to what I said.
In fact, you are the one not considering all the evidence when you ignore all the details, inconsistencies, and provenance issues surrounding certain evidence, and just blindly going with “anonymous letter says so”.
So a mistake makes somebody “inept”. I suppose you’ve never made one. In any case he ended up showing the documents to Odum, so what difference does it make?
And how is that even relevant?
It most certainly does apply to what you said.
I make mistakes. Everyone does. Aguilar’s mistake is a whopper though… And are we supposed to just take his word that he showed the documents to him. Why doesn’t he provide a transcript of what Odum said when he supposedly did see the document?
What happened to your insistence on “authentication” that you always clamor about regarding the plethora of incriminating evidence.
You are the one who accused me of smearing him because he was old. It is relevant because any perceived smearing was not intentional or needed. He was old.
It was shown to be unreliable because Odum disputed ever having shown CE399 to anyone. And Tomlinson and Wright disputed ever having been shown CE399 by Odum.
If something or someone is unreliable then they are unreliable. You don’t just get to pick out things you like and declare them to be reliable if the source is not.
It was shown to be unreliable because Odum disputed ever having shown CE399 to anyone. And Tomlinson and Wright disputed ever having been shown CE399 by Odum.
Those are inconsistencies, not proof.
Again, no one has proven that CE2011 is unreliable.
And again, even if a part of a document such as CE2011 is found to have an error (it hasn’t been) that does not automatically mean the entire document is unreliable.
That’s quite a double standard. Why don’t you require anything of the sort from your anonymous letter writer?
Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.
Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.
That’s quite a double standard. Why don’t you require anything of the sort from your anonymous letter writer?
Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.
Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.
It is a reasonable standard and prerequisite if the two “researchers” want anyone to believe them.
No double standard. C2011 is an official FBI document written by the Dallas Office of the FBI.
It was admitted into evidence by the WC.
Your innuendo that it is somehow tainted is pure speculation. A jury could not consider speculation.
That’s quite a double standard. Why don’t you require anything of the sort from your anonymous letter writer?
Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.
Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.
Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.
Ridiculous, reasonable doubt is not based on inconsistencies that only generate questions without answers, only speculation. Speculation is not reasonable doubt. Your idea of reasonable doubt is most definitely not based on the legal definition.
This is where the disconnect is. Nobody has to prove CE2011 false. If you want to rely on it as evidence, you need to demonstrate that it is true. The inconsistencies raise doubt as to its veracity. The anonymous, thirdhand nature of the document raises doubt about its authenticity.
The inconsistencies make it unreliable. If it could be proven false then we would say it’s false, not just unreliable.
If there’s no way to determine what parts are reliable and what parts are not, then an unreliable source is an unreliable source.
You seem to be under the impression that reasonable doubt requires proof to the contrary. It doesn’t. It just requires doubt about what’s presented as evidence. Doubt is based on the quality, relevance, and reliability of what’s presented. There’s no speculation involved.
This is where the disconnect is. Nobody has to prove CE2011 false. If you want to rely on it as evidence, you need to demonstrate that it is true. The inconsistencies raise doubt as to its veracity. The anonymous, thirdhand nature of the document raises doubt about its authenticity.
All possible doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. If you want to claim that it is unreliable you need a reasonable doubt, not some inconsistencies that have no answers only innuendo and conjecture. Give us a reasonable doubt. Not some innuendo or conjecture that it is possible it is tainted in some unidentified way.
The inconsistencies make it unreliable. If it could be proven false then we would say it’s false, not just unreliable.
No the inconsistencies do not make it unreliable. The inconsistencies only generate questions which have not been answered. The answers could just as likely (if not more so) lie with faulty memories, faulty interviews (one of which I have pointed out) where words are twisted or “put in the mouths” of the interviewees. You need solid evidence that CE2011 is not accurate before you can claim that it is unreliable.
LOL. You proved my point. The DPD indicated that they found Oswald's print on the rifle. You still don't accept it. Ignore that and discuss the FBI. We would be going down this same contrarian rabbit hole if Oswald's prints were found on the note. You would be telling us it didn't prove he wrote it. Just touched it etc. Imply it was the product of fabrication and then deny you are claiming it is the product of fabrication. The same lunacy over and over. Every single thread on this forum is taken down these same rabbit holes.
Old age and an elapsed time frame of almost 440-years are easily demonstrated to be impediments to accurate memories.
And I think that you really should stop referring to CE2011 as anonymous. It is clearly written by the Dallas Office of the FBI and was accepted by the WC as such.
You seem to be under the impression that reasonable doubt requires proof to the contrary. It doesn’t. It just requires doubt about what’s presented as evidence. Doubt is based on the quality, relevance, and reliability of what’s presented. There’s no speculation involved.All you are saying is that you think that it is reasonable to hold a doubt about a piece of evidence. But reasonable doubt does not apply to pieces of evidence. It applies only to the totality of the evidence. It is an error in law for a judge to instruct a jury that they may apply the standard of proof to each piece of evidence.
That’s quite a double standard. Why don’t you require anything of the sort from your anonymous letter writer
It is a reasonable standard and prerequisite if the two “researchers” want anyone to believe them. Why would they include only selected portions of a very ambiguous telephone conversation (due to a “mistake” in which the one document that clarifies what the interviewer is asking about) and turn around and include no transcript for their in-person interview?
No double standard. C2011 is an official FBI document written by the Dallas Office of the FBI. It was admitted into evidence by the WC. Your innuendo that it is somehow tainted is pure speculation. A jury could not consider speculation.
All possible doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. If you want to claim that it is unreliable you need a reasonable doubt,
Give us a reasonable doubt. Not some innuendo or conjecture that it is possible it is tainted in some unidentified way.
No the inconsistencies do not make it unreliable. The inconsistencies only generate questions which have not been answered. The answers could just as likely (if not more so) lie with faulty memories, faulty interviews (one of which I have pointed out) where words are twisted or “put in the mouths” of the interviewees.
You need solid evidence that CE2011 is not accurate before you can claim that it is unreliable.
I have provided a legal definition of reasonable doubt.
Your idea of “It just requires doubt about what’s presented as evidence” leaves out a crucial word: reasonable. You need a reason to doubt, not just speculation.
Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.
Old age and an elapsed time frame of almost 440-years are easily demonstrated to be impediments to accurate memories. It is fact, not some intentional smear based on a bias. And I think that you really should stop referring to CE2011 as anonymous. It is clearly written by the Dallas Office of the FBI and was accepted by the WC as such. You are the one trying to smear the FBI because of your bias.
You didn’t say his memory could have been impeded. You stated outright that it was faulty. That’s bias.
It is anonymous. Nobody knows what person wrote the words or how the information in there was gathered and reported to the author. And it wasn’t “clearly” written by the Dallas office. An office can’t write. And the document you cited just says they made contributions. It doesn’t say who the author was.
You just don’t think it’s reasonable to question “FBI letter says so”. I do.
I gave you reasonable doubt. Again, it’s not necessary to prove it’s false. It’s tainted merely by the unanswerable questions surrounding its existence.
CE2011 is about as blatant a case of words being put in the mouths of interviewees as you can have. Yet that’s perfectly fine with you. Because FBI.
In the end, it doesn’t matter what hypothetical reason for the inconsistencies is actually true. The issue is that there are inconsistencies, so you can’t determine which is correct. Other than by making excuses like “Odum was old”.
No, you need solid evidence to claim that it is false. It’s unreliable merely because it doesn’t match what some of the people therein stated directly. It has no corroboration whatsoever.
And nothing in this argument violates it. You made an appeal to “speculation” and there is none. You’re trying to equate reasonable doubt to providing solid evidence that something is false, which is not part of the definition.
You don’t think disagreement with your assumptions is “reasonable”. No surprise there. The doubt lies in the letter being anonymously written thirdhand hearsay that conflicts with what some witnesses referred to therein said directly. It has nothing to do with speculation.
Questioning it is one thing. Claiming that it is unreliable without any reasonable evidence is another thing which is pure speculation and not allowed to be considered by a jury.
In the end, it doesn’t matter what hypothetical reason for the inconsistencies is actually true. The issue is that there are inconsistencies, so you can’t determine which is correct.
Of course it matters which is correct if you want to claim the document is unreliable you need something more than suspicions, innuendo and conjecture.
No, you need solid evidence to claim that it is false. It’s unreliable merely because it doesn’t match what some of the people therein stated directly. It has no corroboration whatsoever.
You need to show that it is false before you can claim that it is unreliable. Suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture will not suffice.
Oh boy,
Is it a suspicion, innuendo or conjecture to compare the content of SAC Shanklin's airtel and the content of CE2011 on that subject and determine, without a shadow of doubt, that the content of both documents does not match?
Shanklin was in charge of the Dallas FBI office. CE2011 must have been written under his supervision. We know from the National Archives that there are no FD 302 reports on this subject that are missing. So, how did Shanklin get from "neither Tomlinson or Wright could identify the bullet" to the added (and I paraphrase) "both men thought the bullet looked similar"?
There is no conflict. Both can be correct.
That's not an answer to my question
How would I know? Why do you think it matters. Is this just another one of the unanswerable questions that you plan to use to insinuate something sinister? More suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture are getting you nowhere. It has been that way for almost 60-years and will continue to be that way.
Is there an error in your software? You seem to think that everything you don't agree with or like is somehow "suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture". What's up with that.
Again. SAC Dallas Gordon Shanklin wrote in an airtel to his superiors in Washington that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet.
There is no FD302 by Odum or any other officer on this subject that could have provided the "both men thought it was the same bullet" for inclusion in CE2011
Yet, CE2011, written by somebody in Shanklin's office somehow just added that last part and thus change the total context of the message.
Now, you may have no problem with some unidentified FBI official, being part of an official investigation, adding on something in a report that neither witness actually said, but I do.
So, when you ask why it matters, the answer is that it is manipulation of evidence to present as evidence something that a witness never said!
“Adding something that neither witness said” is pure speculation. The CE2011 memo could just as well contain what they did say. The air tel could just as well mean they didn’t positively identify the bullet, which is also what is said in CE2011 (hence no conflict). The “additions” could just as well simply be elaborating on the complete interviews. If you are going to claim that CE2011 is unreliable you have to first show that there is something actually wrong with it. You haven’t done that.
“Adding something that neither witness said” is pure speculation.
No it isn't. Tomlinson is on record twice that he was only shown a bullet once, in December 1963 by SAC Shanklin, so there is no way he could have told anything to Odum and Wright is on record that the bullet he saw on 11/22/63 was pointed, which eliminates the possibility that he told Odum "it looks like the bullet".
The CE2011 memo could just as well contain what they did say.
Really? Then show us where that information came from. How did the man who wrote CE2011 in Shanklin's office know what both witnesses (allegedly) said, when there are no FD 302 reports by Odum about the alleged meeting?
And "could just as well" is a nice bit of speculation.....
The air tel could just as well mean they didn’t positively identify the bullet, which is also what is said in CE2011 (hence no conflict).
More "could just as well" speculation. You clearly seem to think that an Airtel from an Agent in Charge of a fieldoffice to FBI headoffice can easily contain incomplete information.... Really?
And indeed, there is no conflict between the Airtel and CE2011 when it concerns the "could not identify" part. But that part isn't the problem!
The “additions” could just as well simply be elaborating on the complete interviews.
More "could just as well" speculation. And what "complete interviews"? Where are the transcripts of those interviews? You know, the FD 302 that Odum said he would have written if the meeting with Tomlinson and Wright had indeed taken place. Those same FD 302's the National Archives looked for and could not find. Actually because of the numbering of documents they were able to conclude that those FD 302's were not missing and thus simply did not exist.
If you are going to claim that CE2011 is unreliable you have to first show that there is something actually wrong with it. You haven’t done that.
Oh yes I have... it's painfully obvious what's wrong with it, but you will never be willing to see it. Instead you prefer the "could just as well" speculations you have displayed here.
All you have provided so far is speculation, hearsay, and more questions.
Is there an error in your software? You seem to think that everything you don't agree with or like is somehow "suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture". What's up with that.
Thank you for proving my point.
You can't explain where the addition of the "both men thought it looked similar" came from. You can't even prove that the meeting of Odum, Tomlinson and Wright actually took place and you can't refute any of the information I have provided so you just dismiss it all and rely on CE2011..... because "the FBI said so"
You've shown your faith based true colors and just like any other die hard LN you can't even argue your own case.
What?! No real evidence? Basing everything on what your two “researchers” say?
Not really....
From Tomlinson's WC deposition;
Mr. SPECTER. How many times did the FBI interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Once.
Mr. SPECTER. How many times did the Secret Service interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Once.
Mr. SPECTER. When did the FBI interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe they were the first to do it.
Mr. SPECTER. Approximately when was that?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think that was the latter part of November.
From the transcript of the Marcus - Tomlinson interview July 25, 1966 (HSCA RG 233)
M: Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?
T: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in.
M: When Shanklin and Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?
T: Yes
M: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?
T: Yes, I believe they did
<>
M: Appeared to be. OK, so that was the only time that the FBI, then, ever asked you to maken an identification of the bullet to your recollection.
T: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock --- uh, excuse me that's saturday morning --- after the assassination the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to keep my mouth shut.
O.V. Wright's story about the pointed bullet was published in the book "Six seconds in Dallas" by Josiah Thompson and has never ever been challenged by anybody.
The only one who has no real evidence for your "could have been" claims is you!
When you find a way to squeeze "Odum showed the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright" in there, you will let me know, won't you?
So, do you have any record of Shanklin interviewing either one of them?
And, I am only asking, where was CE399 during “the latter part of November”? Did it happen to be in Washington at that time?
Who is asking questions now?
Still desperately looking for a way out, I see...... Were you able to squeeze the Odum/Tomlinson/Wright interview in there somehow?
So, do you have any record of Shanklin interviewing either one of them?
Never really looked for it. I'm not sure if a SAC actually files reports, but I'll see if I can find something. Btw, are you suggesting that Tomlinson lied to the WC?
And, I am only asking, where was CE399 during “the latter part of November”? Did it happen to be in Washington at that time?
First of all, are you talking about the bullet Tomlinson and Wright actually saw on 11/22/63 or the one we now know as CE399 for which Arlen Specter could not provide any proof of authenticy?
But you've pointed out another problem regarding CE 399. There is no way of knowing where it was, because there is no chain of custody. No even close... and it isn't the only piece of evidence that has this problem.
Todd gave Frazier a bullet he said he had received from Rowley, but what happened after that is anybody's guess. How is that for "sound investigatory work" in the highest profile case of the decade?
But let's get back to basics....
Have you figured out already why Tomlinson would say twice that he was only shown a bullet once, which he did identify, and that was by Shanklin in late November 1963 (I said December 1963 earlier, .. my bad)?
So, do you have any record of Shanklin interviewing either one of them?
And, I am only asking, where was CE399 during “the latter part of November”? Did it happen to be in Washington at that time?
Edit: Oh, and one more thing, (or whatever it was that Colombo used to say) where did you get the partial transcript of the Marcus - Tomlinson interview? And why do you suppose Marcus’ question “And as far as you could tell —- of course, you weren’t making a ballistics test of it, —- but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you? And Tomlinson’s reply of “Yes, it appeared to be the same one” were left out of the partial transcript that you posted. Was it from your two “researchers” by any chance?
Btw, are you suggesting that Tomlinson lied to the WC?
About what? Oh, be sure to check out and respond to the edit questions I posted in the last post.
Oh, and one more thing, (or whatever it was that Colombo used to say) where did you get the partial transcript of the Marcus - Tomlinson interview?
I go the entire (there was nothing partial about it) transcript from the HSCA files.
And why do you suppose Marcus’ question “And as far as you could tell —- of course, you weren’t making a ballistics test of it, —- but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you? And Tomlinson’s reply of “Yes, it appeared to be the same one” were left out of the partial transcript that you posted.
Ah, I see you found/know it.... Well, I left out that exchange (indicated by <>) because it didn't serve a purpose to the point I was making.
Was it from your two “researchers” by any chance?
No, not really. Marcus wasn't one of the two researchers you are now desperately and in vain trying to discredit.
Btw, did you notice that I am answering all your question and you are answering none of mine? Why is that?
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Tomlinson told the WC that he was only shown a bullet once by the FBI in late november 1963.
When he talked to Marcus he explained it was Shanklin who showed him the bullet.
I'm really making you work to keep your narrative alive, aren't I... This is so much fun....
Ah, I see you found/know it.... Well, I left out that exchange (indicated by <>) because it didn't serve a purpose to the point I was making.
You sure went to a lot of trouble to intentionally leave it out. It would have been much easier just to leave it in. At least we know who the culprit is now.
Btw, did you notice that I am answering all your question and you are answering none of mine? Why is that?
You are asking unanswerable questions as usual. I would like answers to the ones that you haven’t answered yet before responding further.
No, it was of little significance and I couldn't be bothered to type the entire text.
No surprise you are making some sort of big deal out of it....
Indeed... I am asking questions that you can't (or won't) answer, because answering them would weaken your case.
What questions did I not answer?
Tomlinson told the WC that he was only shown a bullet once by the FBI in late november 1963.
When he talked to Marcus he explained it was Shanklin who showed him the bullet.
In the section from the WC testimony that you posted, he said he was interviewed once. I didn’t see anything about being shown a bullet. I think that it is you who may be confused.
No, it was of little significance and I couldn't be bothered to type the entire text.
No surprise you are making some sort of big deal out of it....
Copy/paste is much easier than retyping everything. It really is fun watching you squirm though.
No, it was of little significance and I couldn't be bothered to type the entire text.
No surprise you are making some sort of big deal out of it....
Indeed... I am asking questions that you can't (or won't) answer, because answering them would weaken your case.
What questions did I not answer?
Check the Marcus interview in the HSCA records;
From the transcript of the Marcus - Tomlinson interview July 25, 1966 (HSCA RG 233)
M: Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?
T: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in.
M: When Shanklin and Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?
Your desperation is on full display.
Let me guess; Marcus is another one that lied.... Right?
Indeed... I am asking questions that you can't (or won't) answer, because answering them would weaken your case.
No, they are questions that only a Time Machine would allow either one of us to answer.
What questions did I not answer?
There is one that you said you would look for. I don’t intend to go back and look for any others. You are the one who claimed that you have answered all of my questions. Are you sure about that?
Pathetic little creatures resort to ad hom attacks when they have already lost the argument.
The website that provided the information blocked copy/paste.
Are you really this petty?
BS. That's the go to escape for LNs who are unable to make their case.
If there had been a trial, don't you think these questions would have come up?
So you can't point to a question I didn't answer. Got it!
And, yes, I am sure I answered all your question, but just in case I missed one, ask it again and I will give you an answer.
Can you say the same?
You must be confused. We are talking about his WC testimony. Not the Marcus interview.
Still squirming I see.
The ones that I remember are (paraphrasing): Do you have a record of Shanklin interviewing either one of them? And, Where was CE399 in late November 1963.
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Tomlinson told the WC that he was only shown a bullet once by the FBI in late november 1963.
When he talked to Marcus he explained it was Shanklin who showed him the bullet.
I'm really making you work to keep your narrative alive, aren't I... This is so much fun....
I answered both of them. Perhaps you should pay more attention.
No, I'm not confused. The WC deposition was just after Specter introduced CE 399 into evidence - subject to proof, which was never provided - before the alleged Odum encounter.
Tomlinson confirming to Marcus that he only was shown a bullet once, was part of the HSCA files, which was after the alleged Odum encounter.
If anybody is confused, it's you.
This is your claim:
Tomlinson told the WC that he was only shown a bullet once by the FBI in late november 1963.
When he talked to Marcus he explained it was Shanklin who showed him the bullet.
Show me where Tomlinson told the WC this. What you posted of the WC testimony only shows Tomlinson saying he was interviewed once. Not one word about being shown a bullet.
Still being a cowardly troll, I see
This is your claim:
Tomlinson told the WC that he was only shown a bullet once by the FBI in late november 1963.
When he talked to Marcus he explained it was Shanklin who showed him the bullet.
Show me where Tomlinson told the WC this. What you posted of the WC testimony only shows Tomlinson saying he was interviewed once. Not one word about being shown a bullet.
Show me where Tomlinson told the WC this.
Playing games?
What you posted of the WC testimony only shows Tomlinson saying he was interviewed once. Not one word about being shown a bullet.
He wasn't asked during his depositon (for the same reason that he was never shown CE399).
But he did explain in the Marcus interview, which I am sure you will dismiss regardless of it being part of the HSCA files.
What you posted of the WC testimony only shows Tomlinson saying he was interviewed once. Not one word about being shown a bullet.
True, for that you need to check the HSCA records, unless, of course, you are going to dismiss those as bogus as well
You are really desperate, aren't you?
But let's get back to basic.
What evidence is there that shows C2011 is authetic?
So, do you agree that Tomlinson never told the WC that he was shown a bullet?
Good grief, I think you must be drunk. We will have to continue tomorrow if you aren’t too hung over.
All you are saying is that you think that it is reasonable to hold a doubt about a piece of evidence. But reasonable doubt does not apply to pieces of evidence. It applies only to the totality of the evidence.
Questioning it is one thing. Claiming that it is unreliable without any reasonable evidence is another thing which is pure speculation and not allowed to be considered by a jury.
You need to show that it is false before you can claim that it is unreliable. Suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture will not suffice.
Your argument violates it because your claim that CE2011 is unreliable is based on nothing but speculation.
Does that mean that you haven't got an answer?
No, it means that you hadn't been making any sense in this conversation for a while. And it kept getting worse. It was like trying to have a conversation with a babbling drunkard, except worse due to the normal difficulties of communicating details over an internet forum. I will list some items and see if we can all agree that these are correct.
- Tomlinson tells the WC, in his March 20, 1964 deposition, that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. Tomlinson says nothing about being shown any bullet.
- As far as the evidence shows, CE399 (the bullet in question) can be presumed to be in Washington in late November 1963. In other words, there is no evidence that we know of that shows that CE399 had been sent back to Dallas in late November 1963.
- We know of no evidence in the FBI's records that shows that Shaneyfelt ever interviewed either Tomlinson or Wright.
- On July 25, 1966 Marcus conducts a telephone interview with Tomlinson.
Tomlinson tells Marcus: T: "No, it wasn't mangled. It was a pretty clean bullet". M: "Pretty clean shape?" T: "Yep". ...
... Tomlinson tells Marcus: M: "Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?" T: "I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in." M: "When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?" T: "Yes." M: "Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?" T: "Yes, I believe they did." M: And as far as you could tell---of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it---but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?"
T: "Yes, it appeared to be the same one." ... M: "Uh, now, I think you mentioned about how long after that Shanklin called you in, but I forgot --- about how long later was that, that Shanklin and Wright called you in?" T: "I believe it was the following week; it was about the middle of the week, is about the best that I can remember now." M: "Yeah, all right now, the Secret Service then never showed you the bullet---it was just the FBI?" T: "It was just the FBI."
Does the above look correct to you?
I don’t see any meaningful difference between “questionable” and “unreliable”.
No, unreliable is not the same thing as false.
Tomlinson tells the WC, in his March 20, 1964 deposition, that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. Tomlinson says nothing about being shown any bullet.
Correct. That's what it says in the published version of the deposition, for which the transcript was written after the fact. Tomlinson never signed the transcript.
As far as the evidence shows, CE399 (the bullet in question) can be presumed to be in Washington in late November 1963. In other words, there is no evidence that we know of that shows that CE399 had been sent back to Dallas in late November 1963.
You can presume all you want, but what is correct is the fact that we don't know where CE399 was in November 1963. There is no chain of custody and there is also no evidence that the bullet was in Washington in November 1963.
We know of no evidence in the FBI's records that shows that Shaneyfelt ever interviewed either Tomlinson or Wright.
So what? Shaneyfelt has nothing to do with this.
Tomlinson tells Marcus: T: "No, it wasn't mangled. It was a pretty clean bullet". M: "Pretty clean shape?" T: "Yep". ...
So what?
Tomlinson tells Marcus:
M: "Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?"
T: "I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in."
M: "When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?"
T: "Yes."
M: "Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?"
T: "Yes, I believe they did."
M: And as far as you could tell---of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it---but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?"
T: "Yes, it appeared to be the same one." ...
M: "Uh, now, I think you mentioned about how long after that Shanklin called you in, but I forgot --- about how long later was that, that Shanklin and Wright called you in?"
T: "I believe it was the following week; it was about the middle of the week, is about the best that I can remember now."
M: "Yeah, all right now, the Secret Service then never showed you the bullet---it was just the FBI?" T: "It was just the FBI."
Correct.
Let me guess, now you are going to try to argue, based on no evidence whatsoever that Shanklin never talked to Tomlinson, that the bullet was in Washington in November 63, and that he simply confused Shanklin with Odum, right?
There's just one problem with that argument; in his WC deposition on March 20, 1964 Tomlinson said that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. There is no way he could have been talking about Odum, because according to CE2011 Odum allegedly showed Tomlinson a bullet on June 12, 1964, nearly three months after Tomlinson gave his deposition to the WC.
So what? Shaneyfelt has nothing to do with this.
My mistake, I meant Shanklin, who does have something to do with this.
There's just one problem with that argument; in his WC deposition on March 20, 1964 Tomlinson said that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. There is no way he could have been talking about Odum, because according to CE2011 Odum allegedly showed Tomlinson a bullet on June 12, 1964, nearly three months after Tomlinson gave his deposition to the WC.
There is no problem with the argument. Tomlinson had only been interviewed once by the FBI when he testified in March 1964. And it is reasonable to believe that Tomlinson could have been mistaken about when he actually was shown the bullet, when he was interviewed by Marcus in 1966.
And it is reasonable to believe that Tomlinson could have been mistaken about when he actually was shown the bullet, when he was interviewed by Marcus in 1966.
No, it's not reasonable to believe that because Tomlinson also told Marcus that he was shown the bullet once and that was by Shanklin in November 1963.
In both his WC deposition and in his interview with Marcus, Tomlinson is consistently talking about one meeting not two!
In both his WC deposition and in his interview with Marcus, Tomlinson is consistently talking about one meeting not two!
That’s only your opinion.
It is a fact that Tomlinson told Marcus that he was shown a bullet once by Shanklin in November 1963. He also told the WC that he had been interviewed by the FBI once.
Are you claiming there were in fact two meetings?
Or are you saying that there was only one (with Odum) and the one with Shanklin didn't really happen?
It appears to me that there were two meetings. One shortly after the assassination. And the other in June 1964.
That's only your opinion, based on absolutely nothing at all.
That's only your opinion, based on absolutely nothing at all.
In your theory, Odum and Tomlinson must both have forgotten the meeting completely. Very unlikely....
No, Tomlinson didn’t forget the meeting. He told Marcus about it on the telephone in a late night interview. I think that it is reasonable that he got the date wrong. That is all. And CE2011 is documentation from the FBI that Odum did interview Tomlinson on June 12, 1964. So, you idea that my opinion is based on nothing at all is ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence".
He told Marcus about it on the telephone in a late night interview.
No, he told Marcus about the meeting with Shanklin. He does not mention Odum.
I think that it is reasonable that he got the date wrong. That is all.
No, that's not a reasonable conclusion, because Tomlinson specifically mentions Shanklin and he did not have a meeting with Shanklin in June 1964.
And CE2011 is documentation from the FBI that Odum did interview Tomlinson on June 12, 1964. So, you idea that my opinion is based on nothing at all is ridiculous.
And there is the "FBI said so" argument again. What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence" .
What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence".
It is relevant evidence. I am not questioning it. You are the one who claims it is unreliable, not me.
No, he told Marcus about the meeting with Shanklin. He does not mention Odum.
Tomlinson could easily be mistaken, in a late-night telephone interview in 1966, about who he thought Odum was. What you need is something that documents Shanklin ever interviewed either one of them if you want to be taken seriously about this.
No, that's not a reasonable conclusion, because Tomlinson specifically mentions Shanklin and he did not have a meeting with Shanklin in June 1964.
It is quite reasonable given the circumstances of the interview that are already posted in this reply. Heck, you got confused about who and when Tomlinson told about seeing CE399 earlier in this thread. You claimed he told the WC that in his deposition. I corrected you. If you can get confused like that shortly after typing the relevant passages, then so could Tomlinson when being interviewed late at night ~2-years afterwards.
And there is the "FBI said so" argument again. What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence" .
Already addressed. But since you repeated it, I will add an ::)
What you need is something that documents Shanklin ever interviewed either one of them if you want to be taken seriously about this.
I'm not all that interested in being taken seriously by a man who pretends evidence which has already been provided doesn't exist.
Tomlinson told the WC he was interviewed only once by the FBI and he told Marcus that it was Shanklin who showed him a bullet in November 1963. There is no reason, except perhaps your wishful thinking, to believe that Tomlinson was confused or mistaken.
Your theory relies on;
Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
There were really two meetings - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
And I should take you seriously?
Your theory that the FBI document CE2011 is unreliable has absolutely no evidence to support it. Only suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture. You are relying completely on two separate interviews that are not sworn testimony, that are highly questionable, and in the case of Thompson & Aguilar at least, quite biased with an agenda. I don't know anything about Marcus' interview circumstances except what we can see in the interview itself. So it may or may not have some "baggage" with it.
Odum was old and was asked to remember details from almost 40-years earlier by two biased interviewers with an agenda. You showed that your colors are similar to theirs when you distorted the picture by omission of Tomlinson's remarks that the bullet looked like the same one to him. That is one of the main tactics that they use regularly. How are we supposed to know everything that was really said? The partial telephone interview with gaps that is included in their article is a joke. But you apparently blindly accept it as the truth and rely completely upon it and the word of the biased interviewers with an agenda. And you think that people should take you seriously?
CE2011 is evidence probative of two separate meetings, Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. I really don't care whether you like it or not.
Every one of your claims that evidence is "non-existing" are false.
Your theory that the FBI document CE2011 is unreliable has absolutely no evidence to support it. Only suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture.
Oh please, give me a break and try to sing another song for once. This is getting boring!
You are relying completely on two separate interviews that are not sworn testimony, that are highly questionable, and in the case of Thompson & Aguilar at least, quite biased with an agenda. I don't know anything about Marcus' interview circumstances except what we can see in the interview itself. So it may or may not have some "baggage" with it.
So, now the interviewers somehow can't be trusted? Hilarious. Thompson wrote in his book "Six seconds in Dallas" what Wright told him about the bullet and he has never ever been challenged. As far as Marcus goes, the HSCA found his interview sufficiently reliable to add it to their files.
CE2011 is evidence probative of two separate meetings, Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. I really don't care whether you like it or not.
I don't have to like it. It's an outright lie. CE2011 does not, in now way shape or form provide evidence two meetings and/or for Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. You just made that up... all of it.
Every one of your claims that evidence is "non-existing" are false.
Really? Then where, other than in your imagination, is the evidence for;
1. Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland
2. Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum
3. There were really two meetings
CE2011 is utterly unreliable because it falsely claims that Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men thought the bullet looked similar. Odum denies completely that it happened. Tomlinson says he was only shown a bullet once, by Shanklin in November 1963 and Wright - a former police man who knows about weapons and ammo - disputes that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is even remotely similar to the pointed bullet he actually saw.
You don't have to like it, but it is what it is, no matter how hard you try to dismiss all the information.
The one who is speculating to keep his narrative alive is you!
Instead of desperately trying to discredit just about everybody involved in this matter, why don't you give it a try to provide a shred of evidence (except of course "FBI said so") to support the validity of the content of the report, on the matter we have been discussing.
Oh please, give me a break and try to sing another song for once. This is getting boring!
You may find it boring. And I may get tired of repeating it. However, it is the truth.
So, now the interviewers somehow can't be trusted? Hilarious. Thompson wrote in his book "Six seconds in Dallas" what Wright told him about the bullet and he has never ever been challenged. As far as Marcus goes, the HSCA found his interview sufficiently reliable to add it to their files.
Regardless of anything else, all you have is hearsay.
I don't have to like it. It's an outright lie. CE2011 does not, in now way shape or form provide evidence two meetings and/or for Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. You just made that up... all of it.
It most certainly does. You just don't want to admit it.
Really? Then where, other than in your imagination, is the evidence for;
1. Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland
2. Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum
3. There were really two meetings
I already have. Unfortunately, you insist on throwing out the baby with the bath water (much like the traffic court judge did in the story I posted for John's benefit). If the judge really needed to get down to the truth, he could have had the radar gun tested instead of dismissing the charges. If he had, the charges would have stuck because the speeder was lying his ass off.
CE2011 is utterly unreliable because it falsely claims that Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men thought the bullet looked similar. Odum denies completely that it happened. Tomlinson says he was only shown a bullet once, by Shanklin in November 1963 and Wright - a former police man who knows about weapons and ammo - disputes that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is even remotely similar to the pointed bullet he actually saw.
You have presented nothing that shows CE2011 is unreliable. All you have done is present hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc that suggests that it is questionable. And again I will allude to the radar gun in the story not being tested.
Instead of desperately trying to discredit just about everybody involved in this matter, why don't you give it a try to provide a shred of evidence (except of course "FBI said so") to support the validity of the content of the report, on the matter we have been discussing.
Instead of making claims that you cannot support with anything but hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc. Try finding something that supports your claims. I have already given some items that you might want to look for. We won't hold our breaths waiting for it however. :D
It's your truth perhaps... There is a difference.
And round and round we go.....
There is nothing to admit. Your "say so" doesn't count for much
Nope. You have presented no evidence at all. Just pure and utter speculation. If, as you claim, you have already provided that evidence (so not your speculations) than it should be easy for you to tell me the number of the post in which you provided it. You don't do that, because you can't.
Even if that were true, it still doesn't alter the fact that I don't have to prove CE2011 is unreliable. The person who relies on a piece of evidence needs to prove it's reliable. And, silly stories about radar guns or not, you simply can not corroborate what is written in CE 2011. Period!
I don't have to. All you've got is "FBI said so" with some added speculations and stuff you simply made up.
I'll let you have the last word, because this yes/no thing is going nowhere.
There is no problem with the argument. Tomlinson had only been interviewed once by the FBI when he testified in March 1964. And it is reasonable to believe that Tomlinson could have been mistaken about when he actually was shown the bullet, when he was interviewed by Marcus in 1966.
How would Carl Day know where CE573 came from?
CE573 does indeed look copper-jacketed. Is there any good reason to believe that CE573 is the “steel-jacketed .30 caliber bullet” that was retrieved from the Walker home in April, 1963?
The cop's radar gun was questionable. But it wasn't shown to be unreliable.
No, your example doesn’t help because IMO you are making the same error. The mere fact that the radar gun is of unknown calibration makes the cop’s claim of speeding unreliable. If you could demonstrate the device was incorrect, then it wouldn’t be unreliable — it would just be wrong. Unreliable means you can’t rely on what it says to be correct. It could still be correct, but you don’t know.
Walt’s asks the correct question why Oswald did not aim accurately at Walker?
Following that question, why did Oswald not wait for a better shot of Walker , perhaps while Walker was outside the house?
IF it’s true that there was a conversation Oswald had with Marina in which Oswald justified a hypothetical shooting of Walker comparable to shooting Hitler to prevent WW2, THEN if follows that if Oswald was the shooter ,he would most probably have aimed accurately, and would have made SURE that Walker was hit and killed.
Either A. Oswald was the shooter or B. Some one else was the shooter.
If A. Either Oswald lost his nerve, or patience, or he was interrupted by some passing car or something , which caused him to shoot only ONE shot inaccurately thru a window, instead of waiting for an easy kill shot of Walker outside the house.
If B. This other persons motive could be just a prank or it could be a serious attempt to kill Walker which also failed because of poor aim.
If B. There is a possibility also of intention just to have a bullet found in Walkers residence fired from a mail ordered MC rifle that would be used to later frame Oswald.
Priscilla McMillan, in her book “Marina and Lee” page 481, has an interesting footnote (#17) regarding some of LHO’s writings that he reportedly wrote shortly before the Walker assassination attempt:
17. Exhibit No. 97, Vol. 16, pp. 422–430. This is probably the most significant document Oswald ever wrote, revealing both his emotions and his political ideas. It is striking for its apocalyptic, megalomaniacal tone, and the reader almost has to conclude that the author was possessor of the “narcissistic” personality described in Ernest Jones’s famous essay “The God Complex” (Essays in Applied Psychoanalysis by Ernest Jones [London], pp. 204–226). Politically, the author denounces both the US and Soviet systems and the US Communist Party; but his primary concern appears to be destruction of the capitalist system in the United States and its future replacement. Although written before the Walker attempt, the document looks forward to Oswald’s own future. It gives a better idea than anything else he wrote of what appears to have been his conscious purpose in killing President Kennedy, and of the resigned, stoical, and yet exalted spirit in which he went about it.
Exhibit No. 97, Vol. 16, pp. 422–430. This is probably the most significant document Oswald ever wrote, revealing both his emotions and his political ideas. It is striking for its apocalyptic, megalomaniacal tone, and the reader almost has to conclude that the author was possessor of the “narcissistic” personality described in Ernest Jones’s famous essay “The God Complex” (Essays in Applied Psychoanalysis by Ernest Jones [London], pp. 204–226). Politically, the author denounces both the US and Soviet systems and the US Communist Party; but his primary concern appears to be destruction of the capitalist system in the United States and its future replacement. Although written before the Walker attempt, the document looks forward to Oswald’s own future. It gives a better idea than anything else he wrote of what appears to have been his conscious purpose in killing President Kennedy, and of the resigned, stoical, and yet exalted spirit in which he went about it.
What a pile of BS!!
Well, if the premise is that Oswald had a “God complex” then all the MORE reason it seems to me that Oswald would have shot multiple times or taken a shot that would SURELY have hit and killed Walker, a man whom Oswald (allegedly) considered as dangerous a man as Hitler.
And can one conclude that a shot that was aimed presumably with an MC rifle (that the WC considered to be accurate), was a shot meant to kill Walker, when that round hit the FRAME of the window?
The only way I can see Oswald shooting at Walker is if he had an accomplice who drove him to and from Walker's home.
None of the theories about how he rode the bus to and from Walker's home with a rifle make any sense. The lack of physical evidence connecting Oswald to the Walker shooting also makes no sense.
The only way I can see Oswald shooting at Walker is if he had an accomplice who drove him to and from Walker's home.
None of the theories about how he rode the bus to and from Walker's home with a rifle make any sense.
Your comment makes no sense, Oswald wrapped up his rifle and carried it on a bus, it's as simple as that.
Why on Earth would anyone give him him a second look?
Do the experiment yourself, wrap a similar sized object and catch a bus and see what happens.
JohnM
Plus, the setting was Dallas, TX, 1963. Attitudes towards guns are quite different these days.
Exactly, the only problem with Oswald openly carrying a rifle to a location near Walker's house would be someone seeing the news and suspiciously connecting the two events but a wrapped up unknown package would be of no reason for concern.
Btw Oswald did get out of Whaley's cab way past his rooming house and imo Oswald would repeat this behaviour and would have also distanced himself from Walker's house in the same way. Oswald also buried the rifle some distance away, so clearly he was planning on not being caught but obviously he couldn't see the future and wrote a note for Marina which even had Oswald contemplating his own death in some sort of Police showdown, which as he predicted nearly happened at the Texas theatre.
JohnM
Yes, also it would appear that LHO’s first plan to shoot Walker would have involved his revolver (which he ordered well before he ordered the rifle). Using the revolver would have necessitated a close encounter with Walker. And due to the close proximity, LHO could likely have been killed by Walker’s protective forces. So, it would appear that he was willing to give his life for his cause…
The bullet was too badly damaged to provide conclusive ballistics tests, but neutron activation analysis tests later determined that it was "extremely likely" that the bullet was manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company and was the same type of ammunition as was used in the Kennedy assassination.[29]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker)
Consider all of the evidence, as a jury is required to do, and there is no reasonable doubt as to who took the shot at Walker.
Your comment makes no sense, Oswald wrapped up his rifle and carried it on a bus, it's as simple as that.
I believe that Oswald pulled out his revolver at the theatre
because he expected/wanted to die, suicide by cop.
This suicide mentality goes back to Oswald's initial failed Russian defection when he hacked into his own wrist creating a wound which required five stitches.
Ok, the scope was zeroed for what range ? so if the shot was taken from a closer range than the zero range, then maybe it’s not that implausible as I thought that the frame of the window could be accidentally hit.
This might be an opportunity for Mr.Collins’s to do another experiment like his presentation of the snipers nest box which proved (seems to me at least) that a 6th floor TSBD shooter at the SE window, sitting on a box was a good position to both hide from LOS of the Hughes film and yet able to quickly lean forward and place rifle on the box on the window ledge once the JFK limo turned down Elm st.
So if Oswald was such a good shooter then .........
Gerald Ford , who moved the back wound up to the base of the neck
So if Oswald was such a good shooter then why did he miss Walker who was in plain view and why would the tag on that chevy be blacked out .Walker did say that the bullet they showed him later was not the same kind of bullet that was dug out at Walkers house . Is there anyone who could get all of these bullets and shell casings to match up . These guys are like " Keystone Cops " . No wonder they got JFK out of Dallas on Friday and buried him on Monday . What was the hurry ? Same with Oswald and Tippit . I think we have a good idea why they wanted JFK , LHO and JD Tippit in the ground and as fast as they could . They literally covered these 3 murder victims with dirt so they would be out of sight , out of mind . People like Dulles ( who JFK had fired )and ( Gerald Ford , who moved the back wound up to the base of the neck ) played their part so badly that they made The Warren Commission look like they didn't have a clue !Oswald did not miss by much. Keep in mind, he was using his recently purchased rifle and scope so it may not have been sighted properly.
On the 22nd Oswald missed his target(Kennedy's head) with his first two shots and the third shot was very nearly a miss, hitting Kennedy at the upper end of Kennedy's head in the cowlick, so Oswald wasn't exactly a good shot. A professional assassin would hit a relatively slow moving target on his first shot.According to the current version of the SBT, the first shot missed the entire car.
According to the current version of the SBT, the first shot missed the entire car.
However, not only is there no clear evidence that the first, or any, shot missed missed, there is abundant clear evidence that the first shot struck JFK in the back and traversed his neck. There is also evidence that the second shot struck JBC. The preponderence of evidence is that the second shot was closer to the third. There is also evidence from George Hickey, that the second shot just passed to the right side of JFK's head as he saw JFK's hair on the right side lift at the same time that the second shout sounded. And there is abundant evidence that the head shot was the third and last shot.
So, according to the evidence, Oswald was pretty accurate on all three shots.
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BXjBEP1ube2CdY1Grw7dOuPDk3TJvQUH) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/14/1c/c6IJ91jb_o.jpg) |
Not your George Hickey crap again. ::)Not your "George Hickey did not see what he said he saw" crap again. ::)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BXjBEP1ube2CdY1Grw7dOuPDk3TJvQUH) (https://images2.imgbox.com/14/1c/c6IJ91jb_o.jpg)
Even if Hickey had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second (the time span between him with his head turned quite far towards the rear as shown in the Altgens Photo and when Mason has Hickey "seeing" the President's hair flutter in the Z270s), Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered because the President's head is tilted forward. It's just a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. A 1/18th second event wouldn't make this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because
the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't
seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to
hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made
him fall forward and to his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds
elapsed from the time of the first report and the last."
Maybe an impression Hickey had of the head shot and the scalp flying away from the President's head. Later on, he mistakenly applied it to an earlier shot. Or Hickey could be accurate but he's referring to the second shot in the early Z220s. That is when Hickey could clearly see the President's hair suddenly bounce, during Kennedy's reaction to the Single-Bullet strike in the early Z220s.
(https://i.gifer.com/GS0o.gif)
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed becauseThis thread is about the Walker bullet, not the SBT. In any event, Hickey did not turn forward until well after JFK was showing signs of having been shot in the neck. Before then (and as you pointed out) he is still facing rearward at z255 in Altgens 6). No one anywhere said they saw JFK get hit in the neck. They just reported what they observed happening after the first shot. They said he immediately reacted by moving to the left/bringing his hands to his front/blank stare/ etc. None reported that JFK continued to smile and wave at all, let alone for 3 seconds.
the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't
seem to be any impact against his head."
I was just parsing Hickey's statement and it could be he's not saying the second shot (he heard three, so "the first shot of the second two" would be his second shot) missed. Rather Hickey is saying the second shot missed but only in regards to it not striking the head.
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed [the head]
because ... there didn't seem to be any impact against his head."
Other than Bennett and Hill, I can't see where any of the agents (from the early sources I checked; there may be more or later ones) in the followup car said the president was wounded before the head shot. So Hickey might have been in the dark as to whether the second-shot (Z220s) reaction ("the hair on the right side of his head flew forward") actually meant the President had been hit. He only knew for sure it wasn't the shot that struck the President's head.