Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #268  (Read 37 times)

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #268
« on: July 12, 2018, 03:10:48 AM »
📥 "Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.” –Duncan MacRae


Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.

No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

One would think IF the assassination occurred as the WC said then the LNers would welcome the opportunity to discuss and refute the posts in this series, but they seem more determined to have the posts stopped. I think that this shows that the WC's version of events is not correct.


We have looked at some of what the Warren Commission (WC) called “Statements of Oswald During Detention” before in this series and this post will continue that look. This topic was covered in the WC Report (WCR) beginning on page 180.

These are supposed pieces of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO), and what he was alleged to have said when he was presented with this information. The word alleged has to be used since the Dallas Police Department (DPD) claimed to make no notes or recordings of their interrogations of LHO.


We resume this topic with the alleged “Curtain Rod Story.” Yes, even the WC called it a “story” and NOT a fact. It was alleged that LHO carried his broken down Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) to work on Friday, November 22, 1963, in a paper bag he made from materials inside the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), but as we have seen in many posts in this series they could NOT support this claim in the least with evidence. Major issues jumped out at the WC too like the fact the bag described by their two main witnesses in this area (Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle) was NOT long enough to carry a disassembled M-C in it! The bag was said to be between 24-27” and the WC itself said a broken down 40” M-C is still 34.8” long when disassembled!

So many other factors are in play here too. Like the WC failing to show LHO ever ordered or owned a 40” M-C; that he made a bag using TSBD materials; that he took said bag to the Paine’s house on November 21, 1963; how an oily rifle (described as such by the WC’s own witnesses) did NOT leave any oil on the alleged bag; and how NO one inside the TSBD recorded or photographed said bag in the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN). And there are more issues, like this one pointed out by Ruth Paine during her testimony.

Mr. JENNER - For the record, I am placing the rifle in the folded blanket as Mrs. Paine folded it. This is being done without the rifle being dismantled. May the record show, Mr. Chairman, that the rifle fits well in the package from end to end, and it does not

Mrs. PAINE - Can you make it flatter?

Mr. JENNER - No; because the rifle is now in there.

Mrs. PAINE - I just mean that—

Mr. JENNER - Was that about the appearance of the blanket wrapped package that you saw on your garage floor?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes; although I recall it as quite flat.

The supposed blanket that the alleged rifle was in was FLATTER than the blanket appeared when the WC put the rifle inside it at her testimony! How could that be IF it was the same rifle? Or if any rifle was inside it?

The WC, and its current day defenders, make a big deal out of the fact LHO asked for ride home on November 21, 1963, as he supposedly never asked for a ride from Wesley Frazier before on a Thursday night. In their minds this meant that he had to be doing this to get his rifle to shoot President John F. Kennedy (JFK) the next day! This is akin to Ruth Paine claiming a light on in the garage meant LHO had to retrieve his FLAT rifle! And then some of the WC defenders say my “interpretation” of the evidence is off! LOL! Please.

IF the WC, and its defenders, actually bothered to read the evidence in the twenty-six volumes instead of the just the WCR they would have seen evidence showing LHO went home on another Thursday night. This is from another post in this series I did awhile ago.

Quote on

2)Why did LHO go to the Paine’s on this Thursday night?

The WC, and its current day defenders, make a big deal about LHO going to the Paine’s on 11/21/63 as if that shows he was guilty of shooting JFK.  What many don’t realize, or ignore (or worse), is that LHO went to the Paine’s on another Thursday night. It was the night of Halloween, October 31, 1963. We know this because LHO cashed a check at an A&P (store #72) near the Paine’s home.

This story can be found in CE-1165…

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

…pages 224 and 225. In a nutshell, the store manager, Troy Erwin, Asst. store manager, Carl Self, and the cashier, Georgia Tarrants, all said LHO came into their store to cash a check. The check was from the Comptroller of Texas, was dated October 1, 1963, and was in the amount of $33.00.

On page 224 it says the following, “He [Erwin] said the check was cashed sometime between 2:00 P.M. on Thursday, October 31, 1963, through close of business on Friday, November 1, 1963.” However, the cashier that was at the store and spoke with LHO, and viewed his ID, said the incident was on Thursday, October 31, 1963, to the best of her memory.

She stated the check  bore the name Lee Harvey Oswald on it and it was approved by Carl Self.  He too says it was cashed there, but couldn’t recall if he approved it or not.

Why he went that night is a good question and perhaps someone can shed some light on it for us, but the bottom line is this, it is evidence for showing LHO did go to the Paine’s home on a Thursday night before 11/21/63 so this was NOT so out of the normal as the WC and its current defenders claim.

Quote off

Since NO one was shot on November 1, we see LHO could go to the Paine’s without it meaning he was going for a rifle as claimed by the WC and its defenders. The WC called LHO a liar with NO evidence showing that he was. They wrote the following about this issue in their report.

Quote on

In concluding that Oswald was carrying a rifle in the paper bag on the morning of November 22, 1963, the Commission found that Oswald LIED when he told Frazier that he was returning to Irving to obtain curtain rods. When asked about the curtain rod STORY, Oswald LIED again. He denied that he had ever told Frazier that he wanted a ride to Irving to get curtain rods for an apartment. (WCR, p. 182) (Emphasis added)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

They called LHO a liar twice and what evidence did they present for showing he had lied? Frazier’s word for it and the claim of him getting the wrong weekend for a party the Paine’s were throwing for their children. It seems the WC said the party was the previous weekend and the ONLY word they had for this statement came from Marina Oswald. Look at what she said in her testimony and decide for yourself how serious this claim is.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, the weekend of October 25th to the 27th, did your husband return to Irving that weekend?

Mrs. OSWALD. There were some weekends when he did not come. But this was at my request. It happened twice, I think. One such weekend was the occasion of the birthday of Mrs. Paine's daughter. And I knew that Lee didn't like Michael, Mrs. Paine's husband, and I asked him not to come.

This was one occasion.

The other I don't recall. I don't recall the date of this. But I remember that the weekend before he shot at the President, he did not come on Saturday and Sunday. Because we had a quarrel--that incident with the fictitious name.

No, I am confused.

It would be easier for me to remember if I knew the birthday of that girl. Perhaps you know. Perhaps you have it noted down somewhere.

Mr. RANKIN. You are asking me the birthday of Mrs. Paine's daughter?

Mrs. OSWALD. Because I know that the FBI questioned me about it, and they had made a note about it. Because they wanted to determine each time when he did come and when did not.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, if it was the weekend of November 16th and 17th that he remained in Dallas, would that help you as to the time of the birthday?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. This was the weekend before the 21st, and he had not come home that weekend.

She clearly does NOT know the date of Ruth Paine’s daughter’s birthday and says so. It is the WC lawyer who says it was during the weekend of November 16 and November 17, 1963. This is shaky stuff folks and hardly sinks the claim of LHO by itself as the WC claims, let alone proves he LIED as they wrote in their Report. The Report goes on to say LHO said he took his lunch to work with him in a brown bag and then the WC uses the word of Captain Fritz to say no he didn’t. How would Captain Fritz know he did NOT do this? Because he relied on the word of Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle, and as we saw in an earlier post in this series the whole rifle in a bag idea came from Linnie Mae Randle in an effort to protect her brother.

Quote on

After the search was complete and the detectives were leaving, a lady drove by in her car and said that her brother worked in the same building as LHO and had taken him to work that morning. The lady, Linnie Mae Randle, also told the detectives that LHO was carrying something wrapped in brown paper which he took to work.  She told the detectives that she heard LHO say the package contained  "curtain rods."  But Linnie Mae Randle told the WC that ***she never spoke with LHO on the morning of November 22, 1963.*** If Mrs. Randle never spoke with LHO, then how did she know the package contained curtain rods?

Mr. BALL. About that time, while you were there, did a Mrs. Linnie Randle come over to you?

Mr. ROSE. She might have come up to the yard and I didn't talk with her--I saw her out in the yard--I didn't talk to her.

Mr. BALL. You didn't talk to her at all?

Mr. ROSE. At that time I didn't--I did later.   

Mr. BALL. And you also talked to Linnie Randle that night?

Mr. ROSE. Yes; I brought her in, too. (VII, p. 230)

It seems Stovall has more information on this than Rose.

Mr. BALL. Did a Mrs. Randle come in the house also?

Mr. STOVALL. No. sir; she didn't. While we were loading this stuff into our car and into the sheriff's deputy's car, we were on the outside, and you know, going in and out, and she had stopped Adamcik and was talking to him and he came over and talked to me and went on back and talked to her and she said that her brother had taken Oswald to work that morning and she said that she had seen him put some kind of a package in the back seat of her brother's car. She told us it could have been a rifle is what she said. She said it was either in a brown paper box or wrapped in brown paper. (VII, p. 191)

Quote off

So early on we see the idea of the rifle in a package idea was NOT even Wesley Frazier’s, but rather his sister’s idea! Unfortunately for them they described a bag that was TOO SHORT to hold a disassembled 40” M-C in it however. Thus, the ONLY counter to what LHO said he did are claims of others that have NO supporting evidence behind them. They even called the whole thing a STORY, and yet, they called LHO a liar! Given these parameters it would appear the WC were the liars here as they could NOT support a single thing they claimed in their Report.

The next section dealt with the actions of LHO after the shooting of JFK. He said he ate his lunch in the first-floor lunchroom and then went to the second floor to get a Coke. He admitted to encountering a police officer (Marrion Baker) and then said he went downstairs and talked with William Shelley for 5 to 10 minutes before leaving. He said Shelley said there would be no more work that day so that is why he left. Of course Shelley would deny ever speaking with LHO or seeing him after 12:00 p.m. on that day. We have seen compelling evidence in this series that shows this is exactly what LHO did do on November 22, 1963. Meanwhile, there is NO evidence showing he was on the sixth floor firing a rifle at JFK. Again, based on the parameters the WC used to show LHO was a liar we would have to conclude the WC were the liars since they provided no evidence to counter what he said he did do. There are witnesses for him being in the lunchroom and on the first floor with a soda in his hand (Carolyn Arnold and Mrs. Robert Reid), meanwhile, there are NO witnesses for him being on the sixth floor with a rifle in his hands as claimed.

He would go on to say he that he saw a few workers in there and then named the two for us—James “Junior” Jarman and Harold Norman. True, he said one was named “Junior” and the other was a short Negro whose name he did NOT know, but both of these men were in there around the same time LHO said he was. What are the odds of him picking two men out of seventy and being right IF he was not there as he claimed? Kreskin would be envious if it was just luck.

The FBI constantly changed the time Carolyn Arnold said she saw LHO too as it would show he was not on the sixth floor as the WC was claiming. IF LHO was the shooter as claimed, why would this be needed?

Quote on

This is why, as I brought to light in Photographic Whitewash (pages 210-11) in early 1967, the Commission's OWN files REVEAL THE PROOF that Mrs. R.E. (Carolyn) Arnold told the FBI that SHE HAD SEEN OSWALD on the FIRST FLOOR that day AT 12:25 P.M.!

Aware of the import, when the FBI interviewed her on November 26, four days after the assassination, it MISTIMED what she said, stating INCORRECTLYthat it was a "few minutes BEFORE 12:15 P.M." that she saw Oswald.

When in March, 1964, the Commission asked the FBI to interview all employees in that building and asked them to respond to five Commission questions, Mrs. Arnold STATED THE TIME WAS "AT ABOUT 12:25 P.M."

In taking those March statements the FBI agents who asked the questions wrote out in longhand on yellowpads what they then asked the witnesses to sign. Still acutely aware of the meaning of what Mrs. Arnold said, that she SAW OSWALD ON THE FIRST FLOOR, "between the front door and the double doors to the warehouse," in the handwritten statement the FBI then asked her to sign it again MISTATED the time. The statement SET THE TIME she gave INCORRECTLY still again, placing it at "12:25 A.M."! SHE CORRECTED THIS IN HER OWN HANDWRITING.

The FBI then typed these handwritten statements for the Commission. In even its typed form, in facsimile on page 211 of that third of my books, it is APPARENT that the time was CHANGED from A.M. TO P.M. The "P.M." is the ONLY typing on that full page that is OUT OF LINE. It is considerably above the line, as happened with the typewriters of those days when what is typed is REMOVED and then PLACED BACK in the typewriter.

Harold Weisberg, Case Open, Carroll & Graf, 1994, pages 122-23 (Emphasis mine)

Quote off

It wouldn’t of course and again shows us the WC and others (FBI, SS, CIA, etc…) were willing to lie to us to make it seem like LHO was a sole assassin. Why would they do this if it was NOT to cover-up a conspiracy and the truth?

Again, we see the evidence in the twenty-six volumes does NOT support the claims of the WCR, thus, the current WC defenders avoid it like the plague most of the time. Once again, we see the conclusion of the WC is sunk.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 03:20:43 AM by Rob Caprio »

JFK Assassination Forum

Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #268
« on: July 12, 2018, 03:10:48 AM »