"Even if you could establish that Givens made up this story, which you haven't, it doesn't negate all the other evidence that positively establishes Oswald was the one who fired the shots from the sniper's nest."

I've not said it negates any other evidence. How could it negate any other evidence? What a stupid point to make. But what does it mean? If it can be established that the Givens story is a fiction, what does that mean?

I have to note that there have been 91 views of this thread so far.
I reckon a chunk of that number are LNers who have decided to keep their opinion to themselves on this matter.
But don't be shy, let's hear what you have to say.
Do you, like Corbett here, accept Givens' account of returning to the 6th floor?
Do you accept the WC's conclusion that Givens was the last TSBD employee to see Oswald prior to the assassination?

Here's some context as far as Givens is concerned:

On the day of the assassination Givens was a Wanted man. An APB was put out on him at 1:46pm by Sawyer:

We have a man we would like to have you pass this up on to the CID to see if we can pick this man up. Charles Douglas Givens, G-I-V-E-N-S. He's a colored male, thirty-seven, six foot three, a hundred sixty-five pounds. He has an ID number in the Sheriff's Department, 37954. He's a porter that worked on this floor up here. He has a police record and he left.

The search for the killer was still on. Two men had left the TSBD and were unaccounted for - Givens and Oswald (isn't it odd an APB wasn't put out for Oswald).

The interest in Givens wasn't just because he was missing. One of the first pro-active decisions Fritz made as part of his investigation was to round up everyone who had worked on the 6th floor that day and Givens was one of these men - the shots had been taken from the 6th floor, Givens worked on the 6th floor and he was missing.

When Fritz returned to the DPD he his first task was to get someone out to Oswald's house only to find Oswald was already in custody for Tippit's murder - one of the men who worked on the floor from where the shots were taken and who had 'fled the scene', was in custody for the murder of a police officer less than an hour after the assassination.

Meanwhile, Givens had returned to the TSBD to collect his coat only to be gripped by a police officer and taken down to DPDHQ. When he arrived there he was grilled for 45 minutes by Captain Fritz!!

During this extensive questioning Givens failed to mention his little trip back up to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald near the southeast corner.
Let that sink in for a minute...
The President had been assassinated.
A Dallas cop had been killed.
A prime suspect for the murders sat in the cells.
Now Fritz had in front of him one of the men who worked on the 6th floor that day.
It's safe to say Givens was grilled about his own actions, what he knew about Oswald and what he knew that might be useful to the investigation.

And he failed to mention that he had seen Oswald moving around near the crime scene!

Who, in their right mind, would think this was possible?
What logic could be applied to make this work?
Common Sense, Logic, Reason and Occam's Razor are pointing to one possibility, and one alone - Givens never mentioned going back up to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald because it never happened. There was no need to mention something that had not occurred.

Yes, bullseye. If you've never dealt with John Corbett before, I can assure that you're wasting your time trying to reason with him, although your replies will likely help lurkers and newcomers.

Anyway, yes, Givens' belated and oh-so-convenient tale about going back up to the sixth floor and seeing Oswald coming from the southeast corner has zero credibility. As you correctly note, if Givens' story were true, he surely would have told it to the police when he was grilled for nearly an hour shortly after the shooting.

As Anthony Summers and Barry Ernest have documented, partly with the help of newly discovered information that was suppressed by the WC, the eyewitness evidence powerfully puts Oswald on the first and second floors shortly before, during, and after the shooting.

The Martha J. Stroud document, found by Barry Ernest in the National Archives in 1999, refutes the WC's fairy tale about Oswald scrambling down the stairs after allegedly shooting JFK. Stroud informed the WC that "Miss Garner, Miss Adams’ supervisor, stated this morning, that after Miss Adams went downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Truly and the policeman come up." This proves that Adams was on the stairs far earlier than the WC falsely said she was, which in turn proves Oswald did not come down the stairs before Adams went down them and before Baker and Truly came up them. This blows to pieces the idea that Oswald was on the sixth floor during the shooting.

https://www.pennlive.com/entertainment/2016/11/harrisburg_man_appears_in_docu.html

WC staffers deliberately changed Vicki Adams' timeline. In her original FBI interview, she said she left the fourth floor no more than 30 seconds after the shooting, but the WC changed "15 to 30 seconds" to 1 minute.

Adams said she arrived on the first floor within 1 minute of the shooting. The WC changed that to several minutes.

BTW, when Barry Ernest located and interviewed Dorothy Garner, she confirmed the Stroud memo. She told Ernest that she was at the window with Vicki Adams, that Adams left the window immediately, that she followed Adams out of the office and to a point where she could see her going down the stairs, and during that whole time she never saw Oswald.

Keep in mind, too, that Jack Dougherty, who was working on the fifth floor near the stairway, said he heard no one coming down the stairs.

Mrs. Lillian Mooneyham was a law clerk who worked in the Criminal Courts Building. She told the FBI soon after the assassination that she saw a man standing in the sixth-floor window four to five minutes after the shots had been fired. From her position at the window on the west side of the County Courts Building, Mrs. Mooneyham had an excellent view of the TSBD. She was a highly credible witness who reported what she had seen in a straightforward, matter-of-fact manner. The Commission made no effort to refute her account, nor did it attack her credibility nor claim she could not have seen what she said she had seen. So, what did the Commission do with this credible and important account? Nothing. The Commission simply ignored it. The man Mrs. Mooneyham saw could not have been Oswald.

Summers was impressed with the evidence that indicates Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting, noting, among other things, that Oswald correctly described Junior Jarman and Harold Norman as walking through the first-floor lunchroom at around noon, strongly indicating that he was indeed in that lunchroom at noon. If one wants to argue that Oswald made a lucky guess, such a guess would have been amazingly lucky indeed since 75 people worked in the Book Depository. Says Summers, 

Other evidence suggests that Oswald not only declared his intention of going downstairs to lunch, but actually did so. It is evidence which, with disregard for the facts, official inquiries have either probed little or ignored.

When Oswald’s coworkers left the sixth floor for their lunch break around 11:45 a.m., they left behind them an Oswald vocally impatient to come down and join them. Two, Bonnie Ray Williams and Billie Lovelady, remembered Oswald shouting to them as they went down in the elevator, “Guys! How about an elevator?” and adding words to the effect: “Close the gate on the elevator” or “Send one of the elevators back up.” Sometime after this, around noon, Bonnie Ray Williams went back to the sixth floor to eat his own lunch in peace and quiet. Later, his lunch bag, chicken bones, and empty pop bottle were found there to prove it. Williams stayed on the sixth floor until at least 12:15 p.m., perhaps until 12:20. He saw nobody, certainly not Oswald.

Under interrogation, Oswald insisted he had followed his workmates down to eat. He said he ate a snack in the first-floor lunchroom alone, but thought he remembered two black employees walking through the room while he was there. Oswald believed one of them was a colleague known as Junior, and said he would recognize the other man but could not recall his name. He said the second man was short. There were two rooms in the Book Depository where workers had lunch, the “domino room” on the first floor and the lunchroom proper on the second floor.

There was indeed a worker called Junior Jarman, and he spent his lunch break largely in the company of another black man called Harold Norman. Norman, who was indeed short, said later he ate in the domino room between 12:00 and 12:15 p.m., and indeed thought “there was someone else in there” at the time, though he couldn’t remember who. At about 12:15, Jarman walked over to the domino room, and together the two black men left the building for a few minutes. Between 12:20 and 12:25 -- just before the assassination -- they strolled through the first floor once more, on the way upstairs to watch the motorcade from a window. If Oswald was not in fact on the first floor at some stage, it is noteworthy that he described two men -- out of a staff of seventy-five -- who actually were there. This information is nowhere noted in the Warren Report. (Not In Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the JFK Assassination, 2013, pp. 90-91)

As I point out in my article "Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?", since Oswald was seen by Eddie Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams left the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:20, but Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the first or second floor at 12:15 or 12:20.

And on and on we could go.

The illogic of MTG's conclusions is laughable. What he suspects and what he finds strange isn't evidence of anything except his own overly active imagination. But what would you expect from someone whose foundation of his beliefs is Oliver Stone's fictional movie about the JFKA?

Really?
  ...because your latest reply to him is like that of a 4^th grader that didn't read the assignment

I don't buy Boyers' "just because" story. I find it revealing that he made no effort to explain why he would have used the word "missile" to describe three or four bullet fragments instead of simply describing them as fragments and stating how many there were.

It is crucial to remember two relevant facts about bullet fragments at the autopsy: (1) Dennis David, a Navy admin technician at Bethesda, reported that he typed a memo that described four bullet fragments removed from the body. (2) Mortician Tom Robinson, one of the two witnesses who saw Humes's illicit pre-autopsy surgery, said he saw Humes remove "about" 10 fragments from the skull and place them in a vial.

Boyers' three-or-four-fragments story may have been partly designed to cover for the suppression of Dennis David's memo about four fragments. I am certain that Humes discarded at least half of the bullet fragments that Robinson saw him remove from the skull.

Keep in mind that the Harper fragment was made to disappear, so no one should pretend to be shocked by the idea that other evidence was suppressed. Just try to fathom how a large piece of JFK's skull could have been innocently "misplaced" or "lost." Luckily, we have two photos that were taken of the Harper fragment before it was made to disappear. We know the fragment was handed over to the FBI. The FBI then turned the fragment over to Admiral Burkley, JFK's personal physician. And then the fragment vanished and was never entered into evidence.

BTW, the only three pathologists who actually handled the fragment (three pathologists in Dallas) insisted it was occipital bone. One of those pathologists was Dr. A. B. Cairns, the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas. In his HSCA interview, Dr. Cairns explained that the Harper fragment was occipital bone:

Dr. Cairns said the piece of skull fragment came from an area approximately 2.5 to 3 inches above the spine area. He said it had the markings of a piece of skull fragment from the lower occipital area, specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull. (Memorandum, Andy Purdy, HSCA, 8/17/1977, p. 2, ARRB document MD 19)

Dr. David Mantik has confirmed that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. ("Dr. Randy Robertson and Dr. Mantik Discuss the Harper Fragment"; "The Robertson Hypothesis: A Joyless Review").

The fact that Harper fragment came from the occiput proves the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered, and that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

Anyway, I suspect that the receipt that Boyers' typed was in fact for a missile, not for two small fragments, and that it was either for the Mills-Martinell-Young bullet or for the Osborne bullet. However, I think it is also possible that the Boyers-typed receipt was for at least four fragments, that all but two of the fragments were later removed from the evidence bottle, and that the whole bullet or bullets that four witnesses saw at the autopsy was/were simply never entered into evidence.

I find it strange that Sibert and O'Neill said nothing about signing a receipt for a missile or fragments in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy. They mentioned that Humes removed the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments from the head but oddly said nothing about signing a receipt for those fragments. Could they have omitted this significant event from their report because they were uneasy about having signed a receipt that said "missile" when the evidence bottle contained only three, four, or a few more fragments -- fragments that clearly did not constitute the mass of a bullet? Or, did they omit this important event because by 11/26 the existence of a bullet or bullets at the autopsy could not be acknowledged? 

Indeed the Carcano bullet tends to yaw upon exiting.  I’ve recreated it with ballistic dummies with pigskin wrapped around the neck while wearing a dress shirt, necktie and suit coat.  In fact most times (3 of 4 in my testing) made full side on entries in the Connally dummy.  But Connally’s jacket didn’t reflect a side on entry but a 1/2 by 3/8 inch hole (which was compromised as evidence because it was dry cleaned before being properly analyzed.  Haag incorrectly said that Connally had a full side on wound.  Dr Shaw described the wound as elliptical and 1.5 cm in its greatest diameter.  He later told the HSCA he felt the wound was from a tangential entry rather than a yawing bullet.  But I agree, an elongated wound could indicate the bullet had been knocked off a stable trajectory (ie going thru JFK first). However, Connally said consistently until the day he died that he was turning as he was hit.  I know from many firearms training sessions in the FBI using turning targets that a stable bullet striking a rotating target will leave an elongated entry.  So I did tests on the range shooting into the Connally target while it was rotated from its right to left.  The results were an elongated entry approximately 1.5 cm wide. 

Regarding the Australian test, if you’re talking about the one done for Unsolved History (JFK Beyond the Magic Bullet) by Alex Krstic, they didn’t shoot animals (the Edgewood testing did) but ballistic dummies with bones embedded in the Connally dummy.  They set it up following the SBT parameters fairly accurately.  Yet despite an exit well below the throat in JFK’s chest. They recovered the bullet and its nose was deformed and the shaft of the bullet was bent.  Despite both these discrepancies, the narrator stated the single bullet theory had been confirmed. 

Interestingly when I first started my testing, I tried simply to replicate the 1/2 inch overlapping vertical slits in the dress that J Edgar Hoover told the WC was typical of a bullet exiting cloth.  I also faithfully set up my dummy (with the same ballistic gel covered around the neck with pigskin and wearing a suit) by the WC parameters.  My aim point was 5 3/8 inches below the top of the suit collar with the jacket bunched approximately 2 inches and the dummy sitting normally upright.  With a 17 degree shot to that point, I not only got a round exit hole but an exit in the chest 2 1/2 inches below the throat.  To get the bullet to exit near the shirt collar, it took a near horizontal shot aimed at the suit collar.  I ran it 19 times and got 19 round exit holes—not a single vertical slit.  But the trajectory discrepancy really intrigued me and led to the remainder of my SBT testing.

So you want to dismiss the Aussie test because the bullet didn't come out looking exactly like CE399. IOW, you expect a perfect replication. Why would CE399 have a damaged nose if the nose never struck bone. The smaller exit wound in JBC's chest simply indicates it had continued to yaw as it passed through his chest and had down almost a full 180 by the time it exited his chest and headed toward his wrist.

You didn't even try to explain why if JBC wasn't far enough to the left of JFK to be struck next to his right armpit that the bullet didn't hit JBC farther to the left on his back. How could a bullet exiting JFK's throat have missed him completely? I've never seen a CT who claimed that JBC's wounds didn't line up with JFK's exit wound even try to explain that.

A bullet striking JFK two inches to the right of his spine and exiting from the center of his throat would have been going directly at JBC's back and would have to have hit him somewhere. We know what they somewhere was. Furthermore, how could a different bullet whether from Oswald's gun or a second shooter have hit JBC next to his armpit, exited from below his right nipple, and hit his wrist with  JFK in the way? People who dispute the SBT never seem to have any interest in providing a plausible alternative. You'd think if the SBT was false, somebody could have at least come up with a plausible alternative after 62 years. As it is, the SBT wins by default as the only plausible explanation for JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds.

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

Just because Charles Givens didn't mention seeing Oswald in his earlier statements, you think that means he "fabricated" his later statements and during his testimony in front of the Warren Commission?

Silly.

Givens merely didn't mention his brief encounter with Oswald when Givens wrote his affidavit. Such an omission certainly doesn't mean that Givens' sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald never happened. Only a conspiracy theorist would possibly believe such a thing.

Plus, we know that there's no good reason for the authorities to start putting words into Givens' mouth about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor, because even WITHOUT Givens' account of seeing LHO on the sixth floor at approximately 11:55 AM, there is still ample witness testimony from other Depository employees who said they saw (and heard) Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR (either the fifth or sixth floor) shortly before noon. Those other employees are Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Arce. And even Givens HIMSELF, in this FBI report, talks about hearing Oswald shout down the elevator shaft.

There is some confusion surrounding some of Charles Givens' statements with respect to Oswald asking to have the elevator sent back upstairs to him, which I talk about in this article.

But even if conspiracists wish to toss Charlie Givens under the bus and deem him a totally worthless liar (which many CTers have done), what do they do with Lovelady and Williams and Arce with respect to their individual observations about seeing (and hearing) Lee Oswald on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly before 12:00 noon on 11/22/63?

With those three witnesses saying what they each said, why would the FBI or the Warren Commission (or anyone else) have felt the need to coerce Charlie Givens to tell some wild tale about seeing Oswald in just about the VERY SAME PLACE at just about the VERY SAME TIME that those three other men saw him?

Many CTers think the FBI (and later the Warren Commission) desperately needed a witness on the inside of the TSBD building to place Oswald on the sixth floor to firm up the FBI's and WC's framing of poor innocent Lee Harvey Oswald. Therefore, per CTers, they got the easily-coerced Givens to add a lie to his story about going back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then seeing Oswald up there.

But if the goal of the FBI and Warren Commission was to shore up their "case" against Oswald, why wouldn't they have made Givens' lies even BETTER? They could have gotten Givens to say he saw Oswald moving boxes in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. Or they could have gotten Givens to say he actually saw Oswald with a long brown package too.

But instead, Givens' "cigarettes and jacket" story pretty much amounts to nothing more than the testimony given by Lovelady, Arce, and Williams -- i.e., Givens sees Oswald on an upper floor without a package, and without a gun. The biggest difference would be that Givens did place a definitive floor number on Oswald's whereabouts--the sixth floor (the Floor Of Death), whereas some of the other witnesses I mentioned were not quite sure whether Oswald was shouting down his request for an elevator from the FIFTH floor or the SIXTH Floor.

But if Givens' "going to get cigarettes" story was nothing but a fabrication invented by the authorities, it amounted to very little more than what other witnesses were also providing (or would very soon be providing to the Warren Commission).

In addition, I'll also add that Charles Givens' 11/22/63 affidavit is one that is very brief. It's a very short statement made voluntarily by Givens within hours of the assassination. Givens uses short, to-the-point sentences, not elaborating on anything at all--not even the shooting. He merely says "I think I heard three shots".

So it's fairly obvious to me when looking at Givens' 11/22 affidavit that it wasn't Givens' purpose at that time to go into very much detail about anything that happened on November 22. He was obviously making it as short as he could. And just because he did not mention his encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor in that very brief statement, that certainly does not mean such an encounter never took place.

Givens' statement given to the FBI on November 22nd is another matter for discussion. It's true that Givens didn't say anything about going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes in that November 22nd interview with two FBI agents. But Givens did mention hearing Oswald shout down to have the elevator sent back up "so that he (LEE) could have the elevator returned to the SIXTH FLOOR" (DVP's emphasis).

So it's fairly clear from that FBI statement that Givens was saying he thought Oswald was on the SIXTH FLOOR and wanted an elevator to be sent back up to the SIXTH floor.

With such detail coming from Charles Givens himself about Oswald being on the SIXTH FLOOR shortly before noon on the day of the assassination, why on Earth would the FBI (or anyone else) feel the need to then coerce Givens to add an additional layer of lies to his story, which would be a fabricated layer of lies that essentially ADDS NOTHING NEW to the story Charlie Givens had already told the two FBI agents who interviewed him on November 22, 1963?

Also....

The conspiracy theorists who think Charles Givens just MADE UP his sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald due to the fact that Givens said nothing about such an encounter in his original November 22nd affidavit are going to have to accuse Billy Lovelady of pretty much the very same thing (i.e., leaving out important "I heard Oswald shout down the elevator shaft from an upper floor around noontime" information in his affidavit), because in Lovelady's 11/22/63 affidavit, he never says a thing about such an occurrence.

More here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Charles+Givens